Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Dock Regulations, 1934

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has for revising the Dock Regulations, 1934.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): This matter is under consideration and my officers are to discuss it with the Docks and Harbour Authorities' Association in the near future.

Mr. Skeffington: When is "the near future" likely to be? Is the Minister aware that the Court of Appeal has expressed great concern about the ambiguity of Regulation 2 (b)? Is he also aware that apparently a number of dock authorities have ignored part of the Regulations for nearly fifty years, with consequent possible loss of life?

Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Member that the near future is within sight. The Docks and Harbour Authorities' Association has been considering the matter and had its final meeting yesterday. It will now be ready to meet my officers about the matter. I also assure the hon. Member that we are determined to do everything we can to secure a more satisfactory state of affairs.

Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Labour if he has concluded his consideration of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons; which of the recommendations he accepts; and what steps he proposes to take to effect their implementation.

Mr. Carr: This Report, which covers a wide and complex field, concerns other Departments besides my own. Its recommendations are being examined, but I cannot yet say which of them the Government will decide to accept.

Mr. Simmons: Will the Parliamentary Secretary recommend to the Minister at least the administrative changes, which could be put into operation without undue delay? Will his Department represent to the Treasury that the financial assistance which is recommended should be regarded as an investment?

Mr. Carr: We value this Report highly. The committee for co-ordinating consideration—namely, the Standing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee—has already had one meeting on the matter. I think that on balance we shall probably decide to take the Report as a whole, but I assure the hon. Member that we shall not let the grass grow under our feet.

Pension Schemes (Interchangeability)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour what investigation is being made by or through his Department into the possibility of interchangeability between superannuation schemes, so that as far as practicable employees may carry with them into fresh employment the benefits of accrued superannuation contributions previously paid.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. lain Macleod): This matter is of general interest. Arrangements are being made to collect information about existing occupational pension schemes, including the number of workers they cover.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a measure of interchangeability would be of great help to all kinds of workers, and would also help the community in making our total labour force much more mobile than at present?

Mr. Macleod: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government set a very good example in this direction, because there are schemes between the Civil Service and various public authorities—the National Health Service, the National


Coal Board and others—for such interchange without loss of rights on transfer, I should like to see such arrangements very much extended.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will discuss with the National Joint Advisory Council the possibility of adapting to the general industrial pension schemes the transfer principle agreed upon by the Engineers' Guild.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have seen brief statements in the Press about a pension scheme which has been drawn up by the Engineers' Guild for its professional members and I am making further inquiries about it.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has the same point as did Question No. 7, that is, the possibility of the transfer principle obtaining? Can he say whether any progress has been made through the nationalised industries or in any way to expedite the implementation of this principle? I myself raised the question in March, and I know that others have done so.

Mr. Macleod: As I tried to indicate in answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott), we are doing all we can, particularly in the Government services and those services which are linked with Government services, to give a lead in this matter. The scheme to which the hon. Member particularly draws my attention seems to me, although I have seen only Press reports of it, to be an extremely interesting one, and one which I should like to inform myself about fully.

Dagenham

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour what special arrangements are being made in Dagenham to deal with the issue of unemployment pay; and to assist in finding work for those thrown out of employment in the motor car industry.

Mr. Iain Macleod: To deal with the immediate problem, temporary arrangements have been made with the firms concerned for claims for unemployment benefit from workers on short time in the motor car industry in Dagenham to be made on the employers' premises. and for

the firms to make payment of unemployment benefit when due
The employment exchange will do everything possible to assist those seeking alternative employment.

Mr. Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a special point of assisting people to move into other industries, if they desire to do so?

Mr. Macleod: indicated assent.

Hungarian Refugees

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour to make a statement on the progress in finding suitable employment and living accommodation for the refugees whom this country has welcomed from Hungary, and in particular how many families and single men are likely to be settled most appropriately in agriculture; and what offers of farm employment and accommodation have already been received through farming organisations.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Labour how many offers to employ refugees from Hungary have been received; how many of the 11,000 refugees in the country are now in employment; what steps are being taken for the welfare of such employed persons; and if he will make a general statement with regard to the employment of such refugees from Hungary.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Over 1,000 employers have notified one or more vacancies for Hungarian refugees. Up to 8th December some 500 refugees had been placed by my officers in employment with suitable accommodation. Approval of employment has been given in other cases where the refugees have secured work through friends or relatives.
Many of the refugees wish to go on to Canada and other countries. If they are unlikely to get passages in the near future, efforts are being made to find temporary employment for them.
The National Farmers' Union and individual farmers have notified many vacancies for agricultural work, but very few of the refugees have yet been identified as agricultural workers.
As regards welfare, in addition to the care given to them through the normal arrangements made both by industry and by local offices of my Department, I


understand that the British Council for Aid to Refugees has made arrangements with the national voluntary organisations who specialise in family case work.

Mr. Hurd: While we should all wish to pay tribute to the very fine work which the voluntary organisations are doing in helping these people to get jobs and accommodation, may I ask my right hon. Friend how many more Hungarian refugees he hopes to see settled within the next fortnight or by the end of this month?

Mr. Macleod: The position, as my hon. Friend knows, changes all the time. I am trying to get the latest information, and it may be possible to give the House the latest information concerning labour matters in the debate which, I believe, we are to have next Thursday. If I can do so I will.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping the trade unions concerned informed in order that they can help in expediting the taking of these people into the various industries?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the trade unions have been most helpful throughout.

Mr. Gibson: While we are all willing to help and anxious to do so, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that when these men and women are placed in jobs the established trade union rate of wages is paid by the employers?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. It is a condition of employment for anyone in this country, no matter whence he comes, that he shall not be employed at rates of wages lower than those which would normally be paid.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend give special encouragement to the voluntary bodies so that when they make offers of employment to the refugees such offers can be taken up?

Mr. Macleod: That is a very important point. An undertaking as great as this can be carried out only if there is true partnership between the State, the trade unions and the voluntary bodies concerned.

Mr. Usborne: Can the Minister say, in the event of there being a new Government in Hungary and a proper settlement

there, how many of the refugees coming from Hungary will wish to return immediately to their homes?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot answer that question without notice, but my interviewing officers, at the second stage, that is, when the reception and documentation have been undertaken, do make that sort of inquiry of the refugees coming to this country. We shall be able in due course to give the House such figures as become available.

Egypt (Expelled British Subjects)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to find employment for the British subjects expelled from Egypt; the total number now in Britain; and, of these, how many have been temporarily housed in Swynnerton, Staffordshire.

Mr. Iain Macleod: About 1,000 British subjects have recently arrived here from Egypt, and 370 of them—men, women and children—are at present at Swynnerton. My local officers are interviewing at the hostel those who are seeking employment, and have informed them of a wide selection of vacancies in many parts of the country. Arrangements have also been made for employers to pay personal visits to the hostel.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that great appreciation is felt by the British subjects expelled from Egypt at the treatment which they have received up to date? However, will he bear in mind that some of them are young people who were about to embark on university careers or who were in the middle of technical education courses? Will he approach the Minister of Education to see that those who would have had a university or technical education are not robbed of their opportunities?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I shall be very glad to make a point of taking that matter up with my right hon. Friend.

Scotland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour (1) in view of the fact that the excessively large pool of chronic unemployment in Scotland greatly exceeds the average for Great Britain,


what special steps he intends taking to reduce it;
(2) what special steps he intends taking to reduce under-employment in Scotland.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Government will continue their efforts to foster a healthy economy in Scotland and in this way develop opportunities for employment. My particular responsibility is to provide through the Employment Exchanges an efficient service for those who are looking for work.

Mr. Lawson: I have asked these Questions because we on this side of the House think that the Government are not doing enough in Scotland. These Questions are about what more ought to be done for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that chronic, long-term unemployment is the most serious form of unemployment? Is he aware that we have more than 50 per cent. of this in Scotland, and that it has persisted over many years? As to the Question about under-employment, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Scotland's population were to be as fully employed as are the English and Welsh populations we should have to have another 100,000 more jobs available in Scotland than we have at present?

Mr. Macleod: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I really think that he over-simplifies the position when he puts it in the way that he does in the latter part of his supplementary question. There are special difficulties, as he knows and as I know very well, in Scotland. What matters is the way in which the trend is going. I make no party point when I say that I am sure the whole House is happy to know that the unemployment figures at the moment in Scotland have never been lower, with the exception of last year, and the trend is becoming increasingly favourable to Scotland. That is an excellent thing which the Government will do everything they can to encourage.

Mr. T. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that it is because hon. Members on this side of the House note the trend that they are so perturbed? In spite of what the Government have done, the trend during recent years shows that Scotland is getting a diminishing share of the increasing economic activity of the United Kingdom

as a whole. We are asking whether the Government will take steps to ensure that Scotland gets a proper share, so that her unemployment problem will not be reduced by people leaving Scotland but by having new, additional jobs available in Scotland.

Mr. Macleod: I do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman says. The trend to which I referred has been a reduction for many years past in the figures of unemployment in Scotland. I ant delighted to see that. They have gone down year by year for some years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman likes to see that as much as I do. If there is anything which we can do to accelerate that trend, then of course we shall be glad to do it, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no dramatic powers, such as direction of labour or of industry, which would help in these circumstances. We are doing everything we can through my services and those of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that the term "scheduled area" has no meaning for eastern Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (HUNGARY, POLAND AND VENEZUELA)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Labour how Her Majesty's Government representative on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office voted on the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association regarding civil liberties and rights of association in Hungary, the violation of trade union freedom and the right to strike under the former Polish régime, and the repression of free trades unions and the imprisonment of their leaders in Venezuela.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The United Kingdom Government representative voted in support of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the case concerning Hungary and Poland. The Committee made no recommendation in the case concerning Venezuela. The United Kingdom Government representative voted in support of a proposal that, before other action was considered, the Director-General of the International Labour Office should make direct contact


with the Venezuelan Government with a view to clarifying, and, if possible, finding a solution to, the present situation regarding freedom of association in Venezuela. On this proposal being defeated, he abstained from voting on a proposal that steps be taken now with a view to referring the case to the International Labour Organisation's Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.

Mr. Zilliacus: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and expressing appreciation of the stand that we have taken in favour of trade union rights and liberties in countries where we have no political responsibility, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that these very interferences with trade union rights have been carried on under emergency legislation in Cyprus, Singapore and Northern Rhodesia? Will the Minister consider applying the same standard of trade union rights and liberties to these countries?

Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Member knows, that goes a long way beyond the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Essential Industries

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the economic crisis and the need for employing the maximum amount of labour in essential industries, he will introduce legislation to repeal the National Service Acts.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is that not a rather unimaginative answer to come from a potential Prime Minister? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the importance of getting more skilled labour into British industry during the present crisis? Will he take an opportunity of reading a recent study of this subject of National Service by two eminent and distinguished research students of Glasgow University?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No," and to the second and third parts "Yes."

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that Britain has now probably renounced the idea of "going it alone", are there any discussions taking place at N.A.T.O.

with a view to rationalising the whole of national service throughout the European countries?

Mr. Macleod: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the question of N.A.T.O. forces is, not surprisingly, being discussed in N.A.T.O. at the present time.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman is the best potential Prime Minister that the other side of the House has?

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Council for Wales and Monmouth (Memorandum)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Council for Wales and Monmouth on Government Administration in Wales will be published.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): The Council's Third Memorandum, of which this Report is a part, is being printed and will be published as soon as it is available. I cannot give a firm date but I hope it will be possible for it to be published in time for hon. Members to have it when the House reassembles after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that there is generally a great delay between the time when these reports on Welsh affairs are made available to the Minister and the time of their publication? Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do something to hasten the publication of this important Report?

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot say any more than that it is being printed at the moment.

Treweryn Valley, Merioneth (Flooding Proposal)

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the proposals of the Liverpool Corporation to create a source of water supply by flooding the Treweryn Valley, Merioneth; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what


protests he has received from Welsh authorities and persons against the plans of the Liverpool Corporation for additional water supplies, involving the flooding of the Treweryn Valley in Merionethshire and the submerging of the village of Capel Celyn; and if he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd-George: I have been informed of a resolution adopted by the Association of Welsh Local Authorities registering concern at the proposal of the Liverpool City Council and I have received twenty-four letters of protestation from individuals and groups of people. This proposal forms the subject of a Private Bill which the Liverpool City Council has already deposited. My colleagues and I are well aware of the strong feeling of the local people.

Mr. Jones: Is it not one of the functions of the Minister for Welsh Affairs to indicate to the Government the feeling in Wales on matters of this kind, and advise the Government?

Major Lloyd-George: Of course it would be. but I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member expects me to think that this feeling is intense. As I have said, I have received twenty-four letters, and I would not call that an expression of very intense feeling. In any case, there is the Private Bill procedure which can be followed, by which people who are protesting can make their views known.

Mr. Gower: If, as now seems to be the case, this project is opposed not only by some local people but by Merioneth County Council and most local authorities in the vicinity, will my right hon. and gallant Friend reconsider what he should do in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs? Does he really think that the Private Bill procedure is the correct method to pursue in matters of this kind, which affect a part of the United Kingdom that successive Governments have already recognised as not just another part of England?

Major Lloyd-George: I do not think that the Private Bill procedure is as bad as all that. I remember that when I first came to the House a similar proposal was put forward by another city, and it was defeated. In any case, I have asked the Council for Wales to look into the matter.

as the House probably knows, and to see what advice it can give on the whole question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When the Minister receives advice from the Council for Wales, which he has asked to consider the problem of rural depopulation—a problem not unconnected with schemes of this kind—may I take it that when the House considers the Private Bill, the report and advice tendered to him by the Council for Wales will be available to the House for its guidance?

Major Lloyd-George: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to look at that point. I am most anxious that this matter should be looked at because it is of tremendous importance. This is not purely a matter of sentiment. There is a great deal of practical politics in it. There are times of the year when the country is not big enough to hold the water that comes down. I want this matter dealt with reasonably and rationally. As soon as I get advice, I shall consider it carefully.

Mr. G. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the three county councils of the area in which this valley is situated are greatly exercised in mind because of the threat which this proposal presents to their plans for future industrial development, and as that region has the highest unemployment figure in the country, will he please bear it in mind so that this side of the matter, as well as the human tragedy involved, is properly considered?

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, Sir, I certainly will. I am well aware of the problems attached to water conservation and of taking water to other places, and I am also well aware of the effect that it may have on other localities.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Home Secretary aware that Liverpool Corporation took great care to see that difficulties were out of the way from a personal point of view before the Bill was brought forward, and that on no occasion would those responsible meet the Water Committee to have the matter discussed fully in order to reach agreement?

Major Lloyd-George: I was under the impression that the Water Committee did not meet them but that they went to meet the Water Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Royal Commission on Mental Illness (Broadmoor Patients)

Dr. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has given to the Royal Commission on the law relating to mental illness in respect of the working of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884.

Major Lloyd-George: None, Sir. The Royal Commission's terms of reference excluded the consideration of Broadmoor patients and hence of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884.

Dr. Johnson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give this Act his personal consideration, in view of what he has just said? Is he really happy about such a case as that of Mr. John James, on which I asked a Question last week, when a man, who is sentenced to a short term of imprisonment, is certified in prison by doctors who see him there, and at the expiration of his sentence is detained indefinitely merely on a justice's certificate? Would my right hon. and gallant Friend look at this matter very carefully and ask himself whether he can embark on a revision of this very antiquated legislation?

Major Lloyd-George: I certainly will.

Mr. J. T. Price: If the Minister looks into this question, will he pay particular attention to the far wider grievance felt by many families of juvenile delinquents who may be certified under the mental deficiency Acts whilst inmates of remand homes and Borstal institutions, without legal representation or even independent medical examinations, and then be detained for many years?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Major Lloyd-George: As soon as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) sits down, I will do so. The matter which he raises is slightly apart from the Question on the Order Paper. I was asked what evidence my Department had given, and the Answer was "None, Sir". Of course I will look into the matter raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton.

Meeting, Dagenham (Police)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the numbers of Metropolitan Police officers, etc., in attendance at a meeting addressed by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division at Dagenham on 5th November.

Major Lloyd-George: As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 15th November, seven police officers were on duty at the meeting and 43 police officers, including three mounted officers, were held in reserve. The total of 50 included officers of all ranks. My hon. Friend further stated that two police vans were used. I regret that this statement was based upon incomplete information. In addition to the two vans near the meeting, there were two vans stationed some distance away. Two senior police officers used cars to go to the meeting and a wireless car was stationed nearby.

Mrs. Braddock: While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the corrected information, may I ask whether he is aware that the reason I asked my supplementary question on the last occasion was that I knew that his Department's information was incorrect? Will he take steps to see that when he answers Questions he obtains correct information before giving a reply to an hon. Member?

Major Lloyd-George: I stand rebuked, but I do not think that it can- often be said that information given by my Department is incorect.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Were the Minister and his Department and the police expecting a revolution?

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. This was just an exercise.

Car Parking, Metropolitan Area

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as a result of his discussions, he is now in a position to make a statement about the persistent parking of cars in the Metropolitan area.

Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Transport and Civil Aviation yesterday in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). As regards police action in relation to parked cars, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 25th October.

Miss Burton: Is the Home Secretary aware that I and others who live in the street which he knows are appreciative of the interest that he has taken in that matter? As to what was published yesterday, is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that a map shows that street as an oasis of white in pink, blue and yellow, and that that makes the position even worse? Could he make representations to that effect?

Major Lloyd-George: I have not had the opportunity of looking at the rainbow, but it sounds a very attractive colour scheme to me. We had better first study this Report, which is very important. In any action taken after consultation, I shall certainly not forget to look at the oasis.

Mr. Page: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say why no action is taken about persistent parking on pavements? Is he aware that this is a dangerous practice which forces pedestrians into the road, particularly those who are wheeling prams?

Major Lloyd-George: I should be glad to look at it, but the question of obstruction is a different matter altogether.

Fee-Charging Employment Agencies

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement upon fee-charging employment agencies as a result of further consideration by the Government.

Major Lloyd-George: It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the necessary legislation to secure the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 96 but I regret that there is no prospect of the introduction of this Measure during the present Session.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that this matter, which concerns Coventry, was transferred to him from the

Minister of Labour? Is he aware that the trade unions are very concerned, and that they feel that agencies in Coventry have prior knowledge about jobs becoming vacant? Is he aware that we are told that these agencies charge not only a registration fee but a proportion of the first week's wages when a job is obtained? In view of the position in Coventry, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look at the matter, without waiting for the I.L.O.?

Major Lloyd-George: I am having consultations with the local authority associations and as soon as they are completed I will have consultations with the trade unions as well.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman join with the Minister of Labour in advertising the much better service that can be obtained from the employment exchanges than through these fee-charging agencies, and the fact that there is a far greater possibility of the trade unions and employers using the exchanges rather than those agencies?

Prisoner, Parkhurst Prison (Death)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that George Dean, a prisoner at Parkhurst Prison, was suffering from an incurable disease for some months, and died in prison on 17th November; and why he was not permitted to die outside prison.

Major Lloyd-George: Consideration was given during the final stages of Dean's illness to the possibility of authorising his release from prison, but in view of the fact that he had no home to go to and the medical advice that discharge would not promote recovery and that continued imprisonment would not shorten his life, it was decided that his release would not be justified.

Mr. Yates: Is the Home Secretary aware that this man had friends who were willing to receive him, and that when I saw him in October he was not expected to live many weeks? In view of the fact that he was one of thirty-seven prisoners who have died in Parkhurst Gaol in the past five years, not one of whom was allowed to die outside the prison, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into this matter?

Major Lloyd-George: Of course I will look into any matter which the hon. Gentleman raises. I am allowed, if there is a chance of some improvement, to grant release temporarily for medical reasons, and there is also the Royal Prerogative. In the circumstances of this case, however, I do not think that any good purpose would have been served in view of what I have said—that it would have had no effect on his recovery. The number of prisoners who have died in Parkhurst is not surprising as many prisoners go to Parkhurst because of the state of their health and because they have a long period of detention.

Prisoners (Drawings and Paintings)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the privilege whereby G. Howison, an artist imprisoned at Parkhurst Gaol, was allowed to send drawings and paintings made at his own expense to his home has been discontinued and in what circumstances prisoners may be permitted under his regulations to send to relatives articles which have been made in their cells at their own expense.

Major Lloyd-George: Prisoners are not permitted to send out during their sentence drawings or paintings done in prison. This prisoner was originally allowed to do so because of a mistaken interpretation, which I regret, of the governing circular.

Mr. Yates: Is not the Home Secretary aware that this man's pictures are displayed throughout Parkhurst Gaol, and that he was allowed to send home over 1,000 pictures as a means of helping him to become rehabilitated when he leaves prison? If there is no abuse, why cannot he be allowed to continue to send them?

Major Lloyd-George: The Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders advised in 1949, and it has been confirmed since, that this should not be done. In this instance he was allowed to do so by mistake, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this practice could lead to tremendous abuses if it were allowed.

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House whether the rule to which he referred applies also

to taking out works of literature or art at the end of the sentence? There is a feeling that it is one of the more depressing features of modern administration, that whereas in the past many works have been completed in prison and have subsequently seen the light of day, that does not seem possible nowadays.

Major Lloyd-George: They are allowed to take them out.

Detention Centres

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abandon the proposal to provide a junior and a senior detention centre for the North of England in 1957–58 and use any available funds for the provision of remand centres under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. Apart from considerations of policy, the cost of one remand centre would be so much greater than the cost of two detention centres, that no useful purpose would be served by such a course.

Mr. Royle: But would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that detention centres were regarded as experimental, and will he not await the Report of the Committee on Children and Young Persons before he opens any more? If the Home Secretary has money to spare in his Estimates, would it not be much better to spend it on remand centres, for which there is such a tremendous demand?

Major Lloyd-George: I agree, but there is a queue and we have to judge where the place should be in the queue. The fact remains that one remand centre, the smallest, would cost about £400,000 and the largest about £700,000 and that we could probably get two detention centres from converted houses for about £150,000. I am anxious to get two more to complete the scheme, which would serve the North of England, and that is very important.

Trial (Transcript of Proceedings)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Joseph Grech was wrongly imprisoned as a result of a criminal conspiracy for which Ben Canter


and Police Sergeant Robertson are now serving sentences of imprisonment; that Joseph Grech who is seeking a retrial of his case needs a copy of the proceedings of the trial of Canter and Robertson; that the Court of Criminal Appeal has decided that Grech, although the victim of this conspiracy, is not an interested party within Section 16 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, and so is not entitled to a copy; that his depart-morn has refused to provide Grech with a copy; and what he now proposes to do so that Grech can obtain a transcript.

Major Lloyd-George: I do not accept the assertion in the first part of the Question. As regards the transcript of the case referred to, Grech's solicitor applied for a copy of it in August and again in November without on either occasion giving any grounds for his request. The greater part of the note of this long trial has not been transcribed and I was not prepared to incur the considerable expense of obtaining a transcript in order to lend it to a person for his private purposes.
Before the solicitor made his second application to me it had been suggested on Grech's behalf in the course of an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal that he proposed to petition for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative with a view to a reference of his case to the Court under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, and that he required the transcript for that purpose. I, therefore, caused the solicitor to be informed that if this was his client's intention I should be prepared to consider what assistance I could give. The solicitor has now confirmed that it is his client's intention to petition, and I am accordingly arranging for a copy of the transcript to be obtained and lent to the solicitor for the purpose of preparing the proposed petition.

Mr. de Freitas: I am glad that has happened, but has it not taken a long time, and has the matter not thrown the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department into the position of referring this man to the courts and of the courts referring him to the Home Office?

Major Lloyd-George: The solicitor asked for the transcript on two occasions without giving any indication of what he wanted it for. As I have said in answer

to the Question, when he said what it was wanted for, it was given. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is an expensive matter because a full transcript would cost about £200.

Hungarian Refugees

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that Communist agents do not enter this country under the guise of Hungarian refugees.

Major Lloyd-George: When the decision was taken, on 23rd November, to dispense with individual interviews with Hungarian refugees before admitting them to this country, it was realised that this involved certain risks, but these risks were deliberately accepted in order to give help as quickly as possible to the refugees and to the Austrian Government. It would not be in the public interest to give details of security arrangements but I can assure my hon. Friend that the point he makes has not been overlooked.

Mr. Remnant: Whilst thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that Answer, and whilst it is highly desirable that the genuine refugees should get through as quickly as possible, may I ask if he is aware that it is equally highly desirable that the others should not come in?

Major Lloyd-George: It is also important, in view of the condition of many of these people, that nothing should be said which would tend to exaggerate their fears and suspicions, and that they should realise that they have at last got into a free country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Home Secretary not agree that it is very difficult to define Communists in relation to Hungary? Would he not agree that some of the strongest opponents of the Kadar Government are Communists, that there are Tito Communists, Gomulka Communists and Hungarian Communists, and that it would be grossly unfair to regard these as enemy agents?

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will withdraw his ban on the admission of Hungarian refugees and ask the local authorities' Civil Defence services and the Women's Voluntary


Services to give their full support to caring for the Hungarian refugees, so that the billeting and resettlement of these refugees may be speeded up.

Major Lloyd-George: I have described the suspension as temporary but I regret that it is not possible for me today to make any definite statement as to the future. At the moment it is necessary to concentrate on settling in employment and private accommodation the refugees who are now in hostels.
The Women's Voluntary Services are already dealing, on behalf of the British Council for Aid to Refugees, with the many generous offers of accommodation in private households which have been received, and as a result of discussions which my officers have had with the representatives of the local authorities' associations arrangements are being worked out to facilitate co-operation between the local authorities, the voluntary bodies and the Ministry of Labour, which is helping to place the refugees in employment. I have been assured of the full support of the local authorities in this work.

Mr. de Freitas: I am sure that the House is very glad to hear that, but will the Home Secretary do everything he can to ascertain when he can lift the ban? Although we as a country have done very well in receiving refugees, surely we could speed up the work if we brought in the Civil Defence service? Is it not a fact that many of the refugees who have come here are in transit for overseas?

Major Lloyd-George: One of the difficulties—it was a peculiar one at the time—was that some of the barracks which wore being used were wanted for the Services, and that created something of a bottleneck. That matter is now being looked at.

Sir J. Hutchison: In view of the generous undertaking by this country to receive these refugees without limit, an undertaking which has now had to be reviewed, and in view of the great financial burden which is falling upon Austria in that she is receiving almost unlimited numbers of these individuals, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consult his right hon. Friends as to whether financial aid can be given to Austria in lieu of our taking the refugees who would otherwise have been received in this country?

Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly look at that point. I would remind my hon. Friend that we first decided to limit to 2,500 the number of refugees that we would take, and it was because of a request which came from Austria that we removed the ceiling.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the Home Secretary has done and is doing in the matter, but does it not put the matter into fair perspective to point out that a few days ago Austria, which is a much smaller country than ours, was housing about ten times the number of refugees that we have so far? Does not the tremendous urgency of the situation in Austria have a bearing on the sort of sacrifice that we should try to make?

Major Lloyd-George: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we are only too anxious to do what we can in the matter. I do not think that the country need be ashamed of what we have done up to date. This trouble is a purely mechanical one, and I cannot go any further until it has been cleared out of the way. I shall give the House further information as soon as I can.

Mr. Holt: Am I right in thinking that the Home Secretary's reference to local authorities is an advance on the statement which he made in a Written Answer to a Question last Thursday? If so, will he give wide publicity to it and encourage people who wish to help to send their offers to the local authorities and so prevent some of the bottlenecks which are occurring because they are sending their offers of help to the Refugee Council in London?

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman kindly came to see me some time last week, and one or two suggestions that he made were followed up immediately. I think he will realise from my Answer that we are in very close touch with the local authorities. I believe the situation there will be satisfactory.

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Hungarian refugees have now arrived in this country since the recent Hungarian rising; what facilities exist to enable all who do not wish to become residents in this country to emigrate to


the country of their choice provided it is willing to receive them; and if he is satisfied with these arrangements.

Major Lloyd-George: The Answer to the first part of the Question is about 11,000. As regards the remainder, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that urgent consideration is being given to the question of facilitating the emigration from this country of those refugees who want to go to countries which are willing to receive them. I will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Major Beamish: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend's reply show that no other country has acted so generously Or so promptly? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Austria?"]At the same time, is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the fact that this country does not belong to the Inter-Governmental Committee on European Migration creates considerable difficulties as regards refugees who want to go to countries other than the British Dominions? Is there not a very strong case indeed for this country to join the main international agency handling this problem?

Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly look at the point. While we all appreciate that this country has done very well, we must always remember that the Commonwealth has been extremely generous in making offers to any of the refugees who want to go to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Paget: Does our effort to accept Hungarian refugees cover desertions from the Russian Army, which are said to have been on a large scale? If so, what proportion of the refugees are deserters from the Russian Army who took the side of the Hungarian people against their Government?

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot answer that question. As the hon. and learned Gentleman would have realised if he had listened to my Answer to Question No. 28, we suspended the questioning which normally takes place of immigrants into this country. Therefore, the 11,000 refugees who came in simply came in. I dare say that in time the answer to that question will become known.

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the Answers given by the Home Secretary to the Oues-

tions relating to Hungarian refugees, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Prisoner, Birmingham (Remission of Sentence)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the meritorious conduct of a prisoner in Winson Green Prison, Birmingham, in preventing the murder of a prison officer for which he was awarded a remission of his sentence by six months, if he will reconsider making a more generous award to this prisoner in accordance with the recommendation made to him by the prison governor supported by the Prison Officers' Association.

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. I appreciate the courage which the prisoner showed in going to the prison officer's assistance, and I gave full weight to this in deciding what remission to recommend. In considering how much remission should be awarded to a prisoner who has gone to the assistance of a prison officer it is necessary to maintain a just balance between the prisoner whose case is under consideration and others who have behaved meritoriously. Having regard to the amount of remission awarded in other cases the six months recommended in this case was generous, and I am not prepared to recommend that the award be increased.

Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that the governor of the prison himself recommended a twelve months' remission, and the facts were established before the court that the action of this man saved the life of a prison officer, may I ask the Home Secretary again to reconsider whether this is a generous allowance since it really means only a four months' remission of the man's sentence?

Major Lloyd-George: I have stated, and the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that I am not bound by any recommendation made to me by any officer. I have to look at all cases on their merits. I have looked at this one and I cannot say that the remission is other than generous.

Civil Defence

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to issue a White Paper on Civil Defence.

Major Lloyd-George: Civil defence will be included in the Statement on Defence, to be issued in February. The issue of a separate White Paper on the subject is not contemplated at present.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Home Secretary aware that people throughout the country in the ranks of the Civil Defence organisation are very disheartened at its present nebulous state? If the Government really think that the propaganda which they have issued about the danger of war in the Middle East should be taken seriously, does not the Home Secretary think that Civil Defence here should also be taken seriously?

Major Lloyd-George: It has been taken seriously. I can only repeat my Answer, which is that in February we shall get the White Paper on Defence, which will cover Civil Defence. The reply to the hon. Gentleman's point about people being disheartened is that there has been a net increase in strength in the last three months.

Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (Nationality)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to amendment of the law relating to British nationality and allegiance consequent upon the decision of the other House sitting in a judicial capacity in the case of Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revision of the law he proposes to introduce as a result of the recent decision in the case of Prince Ernest of Hanover; and what estimate he has formed of the numbers affected by this decision.

Major Lloyd-George: It has been estimated that the number of persons affected by the recent decision may be of the order of 400. The effects of the decision are still being studied and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Bellenger: I appreciate the necessity for time to enable the Home Secretary and his advisers to consider the full implications of the case, but will the Home Secretary bear in mind the whole

question of dual nationality whereby British citizens holding British passports and, presumably, owing allegiance to Her Majesty, also owe some sort of allegiance to other countries? Will he bear in mind also that an individual should make up his mind to whom he owes allegiance?

Major Lloyd-George: That is, of course, one of the many problems that arise as a result of the decision. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all these considerations are being borne in mind.

Captain Duncan: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that some at least of the 400, now that they have been found to be British subjects, may well be traitors for having taken up arms against Her Majesty? Will he seriously consider initiating legislation so that any of these Royal or ex-Royal personages will have to apply for British nationality if they want it?

Major Lloyd-George: That is one consideration, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is only one of a lot of complicated possibilities.

Drunkenness (Young Persons)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many males and how many females comprised the total of 4,417 persons under 21 years of age against whom the offence of drunkenness was proved in 1955; and what increase has taken place in either sex as compared with 1952, 1953, and 1954.

Major Lloyd-George: The figures are 4,183 and 234 respectively. For males, the increases were 902 compared with 1954 and 1,303 compared with 1953, The corresponding increases for females were 13 and 18. Corresponding figures for 1952 are not available.

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the figures of the offences of drunkenness published by his Department for 1955 show, not only a considerable increase for persons under 21 years of age, but also that there is now a higher incidence of drunkenness among them than among persons over 60 years of age; and whether he will discuss clinical measures with the Minister of Health,


and instruction measures with the Minister of Education, and take any other preventive measures necessary to stem the growth of drunkenness among the young.

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, Sir. As I indicated in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on 21st June last, I will continue to keep a close watch on the question of drunkenness among young persons, and if it appears that any special steps are called for or would be helpful, I shall not hesitate to take them.

London Taxi-cab Fares (Surcharge)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase he has sanctioned in London taxi-cab fares.

Major Lloyd-George: I propose to make an Order authorising a surcharge of 6d. in respect of each hiring of a taxicab in the Metropolitan Police District to come into force on Friday, 21st December.

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: Has the Home Secretary imposed any conditions for this increase? For example, has he informed the trade that this 6d. has to be removed when the present price of petrol goes down by Is. 5d. a gallon?

Major Lloyd-George: I can now give an undertaking to review the Order when the increase of petrol duty ends—it is the duty which is the reason for this happening. The only other condition is that the charges should be prominently displayed.

Driving Offences (Fines)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the approximate average fine for the offence of driving under the influence of drink has been progressively reduced from £17 10s. in 1953 to f17 5s. in 1954 and f16 16s. in 1955; that warnings have been given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and others concerning the inadequacy of the fines for the seriousness of the offence; and if he will introduce legislation to increase the statutory minimum fine.

Major Lloyd-George: If the hon. Member's figures are intended to indicate the average fine per conviction in a magistrates' court of driving under the influence of drink or drugs and are based on the Return of Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles it appears that his figure for 1955 should be £18, showing an increase on the previous years and not a decrease.
There are at present no statutory minimum fines for road traffic offences and I am not prepared to introduce legislation to prescribe such fines. I have, however, drawn magistrates' attention to the fact that during the debates on the Road Traffic Bill in another place the Lord Chancellor, while opposing the introduction of minimum penalties, suggested that magistrates' courts might be well advised to review the scale of penalties which they customarily impose in motoring cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Denominational Schools

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education the number of children being educated in Anglican and Roman Catholic aided schools, respectively; and the number of new Anglican and new Roman Catholic schools built since the war, or now under construction.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. King: As these figures will show that since the war the Catholic community has been making great sacrifices to provide schools for which it is responsible, and that even the Anglican Church is beginning to do so, will the Minister encourage both communities by putting back the church schools, especially the village primary schools, which he has cut out of the present building programme?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree with the hon. Member that the efforts made by the Churches are very great and very praiseworthy, but I cannot have a policy for the denominational schools different from that for the county schools.

Following is the Answer:



Church of England
Roman Catholic



Aided schools
Special agreement schools
Aided schools
Special agreement schools


(i) Number of pupils, January, 1956
450,635
6,200
461,205
12,606


(ii) Number of schools completed since the war
38
180


(iii) Number of places in (ii)
10,965
56,220


(iv) Number of schools under construction, 1st October, 1956
19
60


(v) Number of places in (iv)
5,920
20,630

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education how many new Roman Catholic Schools have been cut out of local education authority building programmes for 1956–58 by his economy measures.

Sir D. Eccles: The effect of Circular 306, issued in June, 1956, was to postpone for a few months the start of a number of projects, including some Roman Catholic schools, in the 1955–56 and 1956–57 programmes. For 1957–58 local education authorities proposed 101 Roman Catholic Schools; of these I have accepted 21. Those rejected included many projects outside the building policy which has obtained since the war.

Dr. King: Does the Minister realise that for the Catholic schools those figures represent a cut of about 75 per cent. and in some parts of the country 100 per cent. in the building programme? Will he look at the case of some of the schools, like the Roman Catholic school that he has cut out of the Aldershot building programme, with a view to putting some of them back?

Sir D. Eccles: It is not a cut at all. Many of these schools put forward by the Churches, as they know quite well, are outside the present limits of the building programme, and could not be brought into the building programme in present conditions.

Mathematics and Science Teachers

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied with the quality of science teachers appointed

in recent years; and if he will give statistics of appointments and type of qualification to substantiate his reply.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The position should improve following the recent recommendations of the Burnham Committee. This year for the first time prospective graduate teachers in mathematics and science who have a first or second class honours degree will be granted indefinite deferment from National Service.

Mr. Moss: I welcome that statement, but is it not a fact that the recruitment of both mathematics and science teachers in the past few years has been only half of what is needed to meet future demands?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. It is a very worrying position, but it is improving slightly, and with the help of the teacher training colleges we may gain further improvement in the future.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does the Minister mean to say that the quality is disappointing and not the quantity, or is it with both that he is disappointed?

Sir D. Eccles: I could wish for improvement in both.

Secondary School, Wilnecote

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education whether he has yet considered local objections to the construction of a new secondary modern school at Wilnecote, in the County of Warwick; and what conclusions have been reached for educational improvement in that area.

Sir D. Eccles: I carefully considered these objections before I approved, on 16th October last, the Warwickshire local education authority's proposal to establish a new secondary school at Wilnecote.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the economic crisis resulting from petrol rationing, he will arrange to meet the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries for discussions on our economic difficulties and, in return for an assurance from the Trades Union Congress that it will encourage wage restraint, give a promise that the Government will suspend all controversial legislation, and plan the economy so that all sacrifices are shared among the British people.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The Government have the responsibility for deciding what policies are best to deal with the present economic situation and for initiating the necessary measures. Subject to that, as I told the House on Tuesday, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and others of my colleagues will be ready to discuss the present situation with the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries whenever either of those bodies or the Government themselves think it would be useful to do so.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Lord Privy Seal's attention been drawn to the resolution of the T.U.C. General Council only yesterday, in which the Council put on record its deep concern about the Rent Bill, the petrol tax and the 1s. prescription? If the T.U.C. is very worried about those matters, surely the Government should consult it and talk about those things before we have industrial trouble? Will not the right hon. Gentleman take more positive steps?

Mr. Butler: Certainly. I have already had a word with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter, and I have drawn his attention to the resolution of the T.U.C. It would be very helpful to have discussions, and I hope that the discussions will not be confined to those matters only, but will look to the constructive future.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is some obscurity about this. Are the Government proposing to invite the Trades Union Congress to such discussions?

Mr. Butler: Certainly the Trades Union Congress can come and see members of the Government any time it likes. I should prefer, after already mentioning it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in Paris at the N.A.T.O. meeting, to await his return before anything is arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS (COMMUNICATIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister (1) why he will not publish in HANSARD the correspondence which passed between him and the President of the United States of America, on or about 6th September, 1956, concerning the Suez Canal crisis, and Britain's desire at that time to use force to resolve this difficulty;
(2) whether, without revealing the detailed contents of the correspondence which passed between him and the President of the United States of America, on or about 6th September, concerning the Suez Canal crisis, he will explain why he suggested taking aggressive action then against Egypt; and the nature of the President's reply to this suggestion.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The contents of confidential personal communications between heads of Governments are not made known. To make them known in any manner, whether by publication or by placing them in the Library, would defeat their purpose. I am not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman into the maze of suppositions which he makes.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Lord Privy Seal explain why he refuses to publish this correspondence here when it has been published in the American papers, where it has been said, and not denied by the Lord Privy Seal during Questions in the House, that on 6th September the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the United States threatening to use force against Egypt to resolve the Suez Canal crisis, and that President Eisenhower replied stating that if that happened, Britain would have to "go it" alone? As


he has never denied that, neither in reply to Questions which I put last week nor now, can we take it that that report in the American Press is true?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have enough difficulty confirming or denying reports in the British Press, and I shall certainly not take on the responsibility for answering questions on behalf of the American Press.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Without pressing the Lord Privy Seal to reveal the confidential discussions between the Government and the United States Government, may I ask whether he can tell us whether the United States Government were given a full report of the meeting in Paris on 16th October between the British and French Prime Ministers?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 31st October that throughout this period, in the communications we have had with the United States, we have made it clear why we thought that decisive action would have to be taken, and I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to understand from that that a full report of the meeting of 16th October—and the decisions arrived at—was conveyed to the United States Government?

Mr. Butler: I have already said in my original Answer that the contents of confidential exchanges between Governments are not made available, according to precedent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER AND MR. NEHRU (MEETING)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Pandit Nehru's forthcoming visit to London, he will use this opportunity to meet him with a view to strengthening United Kingdom-Indian relations.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The hon. Gentleman will naturally not expect me to be able to say anything definite until my right hon. Friend returns. But I know that he will wish to take an opportunity of meeting Mr. Nehru if it can conveniently be arranged.

Mr. Moyle: With a view to promoting this desirable end, will the Lord Privy Seal ask his hon. Friends behind him in the meantime to restrain their expressions of derision every time the name of Pandit Nehru is mentioned in the House?

Mr. Butler: I certainly will do my best to control my right hon. and hon. Friends, but there are limits to what we can achieve in these difficult circumstances. Meanwhile, I should like to say that whatever expressions of opinion may be expressed about the Prime Minister of India, I am sure that the whole House has the highest regard for his capacity and ability.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon his right hon. Friend, if the meeting does take place, that while many of us have great respect and love for India we expect a little more fairness? Many of us have been very disappointed that the Egyptian casualties should be exaggerated out of all knowledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] About one hundred. While India is in the Commonwealth, may we see her play her part, like Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. Butler: This Question raises very important issues. First, I should make it clear that Mr. Nehru is simply passing through this country, on his way to visit the United States of America, and I understand that he is passing back through it on his return. It depends very much upon physical circumstances whether a conversation can be arranged. I only thought it right and proper to say that I know my right hon. Friend would feel that he would like to take the opportunity of a talk, if such an opportunity arises. I would add that if there is a talk there should be a frank exchange of views. That would be a great advantage to both countries.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it from that answer that inquiries are being made of the High Commissioner for India in London regarding the possible date of this meeting?

Mr. Butler: I have personally ascertained the date of Mr. Nehru's passage back through this country in the event of it not being possible to make contact on his way out to the United States.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The busines for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17m DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Electricity Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Ghana Independence Bill.
Second Reading of the Patents Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Second Reading of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill.
Consideration of the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme.
THURSDAY, 20TH DECEMBER—A debate will take place on the Economic Situation on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY, 21ST DECEMBER—It is proposed to adjourn for the Christmas Recess and meet again on Tuesday, 22nd January.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the Leader of the House feel that it would he very wrong for the House to rise for the Christmas Recess without having an opportunity of discussing the situation in Hungary? This is a matter upon which there is strong and pretty united feeling, in all parts of the House. Every day in the Press we read of fresh stands by the Hungarian people against the Soviet armies. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not defer some of this legislation—for instance, the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, or the House of Commons Disqualification Bill—so as to give us time for a discussion on Hungary.

Mr. Butler: I should not like to prejudge Mr. Speaker's discretion in regard to what subjects come up for discussion

on Friday, 21st December, but if it were possible for time to be given for a discussion on Hungary on that occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the Government would certainly be ready to take part. But before ascertaining what Mr. Speaker's discretion would be in this matter, I should not like to give an answer to the other parts of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Gaitskell: Even if Mr. Speaker were to select this matter as one of the subjects for debate on Friday, two hours is hardly adequate; indeed, it might give a rather false impression of the views and feelings of right hon. and hon. Members of the House if we treated it in that way.

Mr. Butler: We recently had a debate on the Adjournment upon this crucial and heart-rending subject. I do not misunderstand in any way the interest and deep feeling of the House in this matter. I thought that it would be best to arrange it in the way that I have suggested—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but if it is not possible I will certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Elliot: May I reinforce the appeal that, if possible, a full Parliamentary day should be given to a debate on this subject? As has been said, it is no way a party subject. It is one which is occupying the attention of the whole world, especially Europe.

Mr. Butler: I will pay attention to my right hon. Friend's suggestion—just as I have said I will in reply to the point put by the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that we can consider this question in a non-party atmosphere, because it raises human considerations which some of us think have been underestimated even in the United Nations; and which we should not like to be underestimated in our own Parliament.

Mr. Wade: While pressing the appeal for a debate upon the subject of Hungary, may I also ask whether the Government will, in any case, make a statement before the Christmas Recess on the instructions that have been and will be given to the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations?

Mr. Butler: Does the hon. Member mean upon the subject of Hungary?

Mr. Wade: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Butler: Yes.
I should not like to give an undertaking—if we could make an arrangement other than those falling under your discretion and choice, Mr. Speaker—that it would be necessary to devote a whole Parliamentary day to the subject, because that might be impossible in view of the business which the Government wish to get through; but I undertake to see that it is a proper debate, and properly conducted.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we may expect a statement about the position of the salvage ships in and around the Suez Canal, about which there is very widespread public anxiety in view of suggestions by General Wheeler that they might even be used without British crews? When there is a statement, may we have a chance to debate it?

Mr. Butler: I have been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary about the Press report of an alleged statement by General Wheeler, which we did not regard as being consonant with the statements made by Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend has already been in touch with the United Nations and with the Secretary-General upon this subject. We had a definite understanding with the United Nations about the placing of our ships at the disposal of the United Nations for salvage operations, and I would say without hesitation, in reply to my hon. Friend, that there can be no question of our ships being used without their crews.

Mr. Callaghan: May I call the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that when we break up on Friday there will be no opportunity for a debate on Cyprus for six weeks? In view of the fact that severe repressive measures, which amount to the suppression of the freedom of the Press, are being carried out in Cyprus, if he is reconsidering the business will he not consider setting aside time to discuss the situation there, because of the terror that is continually going on?

Mr. Butler: That is a matter that we had better discuss through the usual channels.

Mr. Callaghan: If there is any reconsideration of the business, will the Lord Privy Seal say now that he will be willing to consider a debate on this subject?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that I could give any such absolute assurance. I have already had a request which, in the event of the Hungarian question not being taken on Friday, would mean a very considerable adjustment of Government business, and that is as much as I can do. But I will undertake to discuss the question of Cyprus in this and other aspects through the usual channels which, under the circumstances, I think is the best thing that I can do.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, some weeks ago, we were promised a comprehensive statement upon the atomic energy programme? As this is intimately associated with the Bill set down for Monday's business—and as Her Majesty's Government are evidently not yet in a position to make a statement upon atomic energy—would it not be advisable to put the consideration of the Electricity Bill forward to 22nd January, and have a debate on Hungary next Monday?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can adjust the business for next week in that way. It is important for us to get the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill before we rise so that we can start the Committee stage when we resume after the Recess and, as we are accustomed to getting business through, we try to arrange it in such a way that it is most likely to get through.
As for a statement upon atomic energy, I will discuss that both with my hon. Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. V. Yates: In connection with a debate on Hungary, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has seen the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of over a hundred of my hon. Friends and myself.

[That this House. believing that recent events have demonstrated that violence can never solve the problems of modern society, and that any nation attempting to impose its will upon any other nation by armed force can only endanger peace and


freedom, welcomes the decision of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw British troops from Egypt; furthermore deplores the continued use of violence with its consequent bloodshed in Hungary; and, in addition to supporting the efforts of the United Nations to bring about a peaceful settlement in this area, urges Her Majesty's Government to ask the Prime Minister of India to use his good offices to secure a withdrawal of Russian military forces from Hungary, and to use his influence to effect a reconciliation between Russia and the Western Powers, which would make possible a new approach to a peaceful solution of world problems.]

In making arrangements for a debate, will he bear in mind the desirability of a full discussion by the whole House? I think that to give half a day to this subject would be unworthy of the situation. This House should do something to end the bloodshed.

Hon. Members: What should be done?

Mr. Butler: I have noticed the hon. Member's Motion, of which I have a copy. I have already given an undertaking that I will see what I can do; but there are other ways and means of having a full debate, while enabling us to get a certain amount of our Government business at the same time.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further? We all realise the difficulties which face him, but does he not accept the fact that perhaps no problem is taken more seriously at the moment by the people of this country than what is happening in Hungary? Will he also agree that ramifications from Hungary are likely to spread throughout Eastern Europe, and that an urgent discussion should take place in this House at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have already considered the Hungarian question and there has been a proposal that it might be considered, subject to Mr. Speaker's discretion, on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I had considered it. The change that has occurred is that, as I like to be receptive to the mood of the House—that is my duty in my position as Leader of the House—I am impressed by the observations from hon. Members on both sides and the requests for a proper debate.

What I must do now is to look at the business programme which I have read out and consider whether it can be adjusted. That is the best I can do.

Mr. C. Pannell: Does the Leader of the House agree that, whatever we may feel about other things, most hon. Members are humiliated at the impotence of all of us to do anything about the tragedy of Hungary? Will he see the sense of the fitness of things by acknowledging that it would be almost contemptuous to fob off this matter by allocating it to an Adjournment debate on Friday? Does he realise that in his position as Leader of the House he is also the servant of the House, and will he bow to the overwhelming desire that before the Christmas Recess we should at least unite in condemning tyranny in another place?

Mr. Butler: I can only treat the observation of the hon. Member with the same sympathy with which I have attempted to treat the other observations. I think that the world will be interested and touched to notice how very much impressed is the House of Commons by the horror of the situation in Hungary.

Mr. H. Fraser: May I make a plea to my right hon. Friend and to the House that Thursday's debate. which has been devoted to the economic situation, should be given over to Hungary? May I ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider that it would be possible to have a far clearer judgment of the economic situation by the middle of January, when the House returns from the Christmas Recess? Surely it is important that the House should say something about Hungary now, rather than the economic situation of this country.

Mr. Butler: The request for a debate on the economic situation came from Her Majesty's Opposition, and, naturally, we pay attention to such a request when making up the business for the week. We do that, rightly, by constitutional habit, but I will consider this matter in conjunction with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Lord Privy Seal seen the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the question of United States residents in this country, which has been signed by about 120 hon. Members representing all political parties? While it may not be possible to have a debate next


week, because of the difficulties confronting the Lord Privy Seal, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on behalf of the Government, he will express an opinion on the pernicious and vindictive actions taken by a small minority of people in this country and say that the Government accept the view of the overwhelming majority of the people that these things should not go on?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that concerns the business for next week. It concerns the merits of a Motion which is not set down for next week's business.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of the hon. Member?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal, on the business for next week, whether he will find time next week for us to debate the Motion which stands on the Order Paper, so that we may have the views of Her Majesty's Government on this most important subject?

[That this House views with concern the evidence that an irresponsible minority of British citizens has been, and

is, displaying an attitude of vindictiveness, hostility, and prejudice towards citizens of the United States of America resident in this country; deplores the fact that in some cases punitive measures have been taken against Americans, such as evicting them from their homes and refusing them services readily available to British citizens; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as may be necessary to bring an end to this regrettable manifestation of racial and national discrimination.]

Mr. Butler: If we started to debate the various Motions which are on the Order Paper, we should never end the Sitting or have any of the Christmas holiday which we all need so much. I will merely say that I am sure that personal vindictiveness in these matters is something to be very much regretted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That any stage of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting on the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES (TEMPORARY INCREASE) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF DUTIES.)

3.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end to insert:
(2) If no order is made by the Treasury under this section so as to come into force at or before the expiration of one month beginning with the first day after the passing of this Act on which no petrol-rationing order is in force, this Act shall have effect as it the Treasury had made an order under this section to come into force at the expiration of that month.
In this subsection "petrol-rationing order" means an order made under Regulation 55 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, restricting the supply, acquisition, use or consumption of any goods chargeable with the customs or excise duty on hydrocarbon oils.
About nine o'clock last night, during the Committee stage of the Bill, we were discussing—

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: On a point of order. It may be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when the Committee was meeting last night we had before us a manuscript Amendment which had been circulated by the Financial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman explained, and the Committee readily understood, why it was circulated in that way. That was the only way in which it was possible to get anything before the Report stage. The Opposition, who moved that something should be done before the Report stage, have been denied the opportunity, and I should like to put on record that we consider that this is something we should not carry on, and register a protest against this proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge officially of what happened during the Committee stage. I understand that a manuscript Amendment was circulated and agreed to by the Committee. But the Amendment about to be moved by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is quite in order and I am bound to listen to it.

Mr. Brooke: Last night we were discussing an Opposition Amendment to fix a definite date for the termination of Clause 1 of the Bill. The Opposition having chosen, with a curious sense of the fitness of things, the final day of the Income Tax year, it fell to me to say that that seemed an inappropriate day to take for the purpose but that I had been deeply impressed by the views expressed by a number of my hon. Friends on the Second Reading of the Bill to the effect that more precision should be given in the body of the Bill to the word "temporary", which appears in the Title.
I therefore came forward with the proposition that it would be well to write into the Bill a provision that Clause 1, which relates to the additional duty, should lapse one month after the end of rationing, if it had not previously been terminated by Treasury Order.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said yesterday, I put myself in the hands of the Committee. I had a manuscript Amendment ready and I invited the Committee to express its wish, subject to the Chair, Whether that Amendment should be moved as a manuscript Amendment at the time or whether it would be better to put it on the Order Paper and take it on Report today. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he would like to see it on the Order Paper, so that it could be examined and we could take it on Report. I did not demur to that. All I wanted to do was to seek the convenience of the Committee and not to take up unnecessary time.
Here is the Amendment. Its sole purpose it to safeguard the House and the country against this Measure's standing on the Statute Book and being kept in operation for an indefinite time despite the end of rationing. We are probably at one on both sides of the House that it would be unreasonable to demand that the increase in duty should fall on the very day of rationing ending. They are two different operations. There may be adjustments to be made and so forth. I trust that the House will agree that it would be reasonable to give a period of one month after the date when rationing ends. The Bill will then terminate automatically, if the Amendment is inserted in the Bill.
I am not suggesting thereby that because the Amendment will now appear in the Bill, the Treasury will remain inert and will definitely wait until the end of the month. The Government would use their discretion on the matter. We shall safeguard the House and the country on this point, which I know gave rise to a certain amount of legitimate doubt and of illegitimate suspicion that the word "temporary" might be given a somewhat wider interpretation by the Government of the day. I hope that it may be accepted on both sides of the House that the insertion of the Amendment will make a substantial improvement in the Bill.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not keep rationing on longer than would otherwise be necessary in order to make up revenue which they need?

Mr. Brooke: This is getting near to the puzzle of the hen and the egg. It will not be for me to have any say about when rationing ends, but I can give the substantial assurance which the hon. Gentleman needs, namely, that the Bill is based on rationing and not rationing on the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course, we welcome the Amendment. We are sorry that this is the only way, a rushed way, that an Amendment can be put down for the Report stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he came forward with the proposal. That is not quite true. It was we who came forward with it in the first place, even in the actual debate in Committee, when he produced his manuscript Amendment. None the less, it does not really matter who suggested it. The important thing is that it will now be in the Bill.
So far as we can see, the words meet their object, and do so rather neatly and cleanly. There is still, though, the question about the temporary nature of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has just pointed out, the duration of the duty is now specifically tied to rationing, and this makes it all the more urgent that rationing should be brought to an end at the first possible moment. It will be defeating the intention of the House if, to

keep the duty on a little while to make up revenue lost in some other way, the Government kept rationing in force for even only a week or two. We should then be worse off than we are now.
The other danger is that we might be tied to the month. The word "month" is now in the Bill. We on this side of the House very strongly hope that a month will not be necessary and that the other part of the Bill which enables the Treasury to bring the duty to an end by Order will be used, so that we can get rid of the duty within one or two weeks after the end of rationing. We would be very worried if the full month were used. Anyhow, we ourselves urged this as one of the ways in which the Government could emphasise and underline the temporary nature of the duty, so we support the Amendment.

Sir Robert Cary: I would join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing my thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for this proposal. I will not reiterate what I said in the Committee last night. That would be over-egging the pudding. I will take up one point about the termination of the month. If we are invited to tear up our ration books on, say, 5th March, the Treasury. I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend, will not just lie fallow but, within a matter of days. will find it possible for this scheme to be brought to an end.

Amendment agreed to.

3.57 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is only 72 hours since the Second Reading of the Bill was moved, and it is only 17 hours since we concluded the Committee proceedings. It is within the recollection of the House that the Bill has loomed very large in the Parliamentary proceedings of this week and has taken a substantial share of the time and attention of hon. Members during the week. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to say very much now in commending the Bill on Third Reading, or to trespass for more than a few minutes upon the indulgence of the House in doing so.
There have been two changes of substantial importance in the Bill as the result of the very full and informed discussions which have taken place. On the Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) drew attention to the difficulties of provincial taxicab drivers owing to the slow machinery of the byelaw procedure which governs the regulation of their fares. The new Clause 3, incorporated late last night in the Committee, enables authorities to make an immediate temporary increase in taxi fares without going through the normal and necessarily somewhat slow and elaborate byelaw-making procedure.
The ether and very important addition is that which the House has just made on Report, by adding a new subsection (2) to Clause 1. That imposes a statutory limitation on the duration of the increased duty and links it by statute to the duration of petrol rationing. Of course, it was always the intention of the Government that the increase should be temporary and should be purely in the context of our present oil difficulties, but hon. Members from various parts of the House expressed a desire that clear statutory effect should be given to that intention and in this we have been very glad to meet the wishes of hon. Members.
On the generality of the Measure, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, on Second Reading on Monday, that he did not expect this proposal to be popular. Nevertheless, he claimed—I think with justice—that the majority of people understand the reasons behind the proposal and think them sound. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) makes one of his sedentary interpositions but I am sure that the House will agree with this political proposition: Governments take action they know to be unpopular only if they are convinced that they are absolutely necessary in the public interest.
That is certainly the case in this context. The Government thought that it was necessary in the public interest to introduce this Measure having regard to the shortage of oil in present circumstances, to the loss of revenue and in the general context of the adverse effect on

our balance of payments position and prospects of recent international events provoked by Colonel Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Provoked by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The wisdom of our proceedings and the confirmation of my right hon. Friend's judgment is to be found, in addition to other places, in the authoritative columns of the Economist, which said this about the Measure in its issue of 8th December.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. and learned Gentleman should have read the previous issues.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would rather have a contemporary justification than any past evidence to pray in aid.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has neither.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member says that I have neither, but long experience of him in this House has drawn me to the regrettable but inevitable conclusion that he is by no means always right in the opinions he advances.
The Economist stated:
There was a strong case for accompanying petrol rationing by coupon with petrol rationing by price an apology is due to the Chancellor from those who did not believe he would he politically brave enough to do this. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the effect of this increase on the cost of living. Any indirect tax can only add to the cost of living by the amount of that tax; either it adds to it all in one place, or else—as with the petrol tax—the cost is admirably widely, and therefore thinly, spread".

Mr. Frank MeLeavy: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Press statement? If he does he is wrong.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On the contrary, I always feel a degree of economic rectitude when any proposal with which I am associated is endorsed in the columns of the Economist. I have no doubt that the judgment of the Economist is right about the impact on the cost of living. We have debated at length already this week the extent of the impact of the petrol duty and the increased commercial price on the cost of living. I believe


that the evidence justifies up to the hilt the conclusion authoritatively drawn by the Economist in the passage I have just quoted.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is there not a simple fallacy in the Economist argument in that so many people tend to round off to the nearest Id. or 6d., or whatever it may be, the fractional increase in cost to be caused to their particular commodities by this tax, which will be considerably larger than the actual revenue which the Government will derive from the tax?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure we shall have the co-operation of the right hon. Member in reprobating any such tendencies, which clearly are a very rough and ready method of proceeding and which seem to have no justification in the facts of the case.

Mr. Chetwynd: How can one put up a 3d. fare by one-fifth of a 1d.?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member knows that the fares provisions are set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. He will know, for example, how that matter has been dealt with by London Transport Executive. The net effect is that the Executive's increase is appreciably lower than the maximum permitted it by Clause 2.
I am sure that the House will be at one with me in saying that the impact on the cost of living should be viewed objectively, as a matter not of dialectics but of measurement where measurement is possible and objective assessment where precise measurement in the nature of the case is not possible. We have sought to measure the direct results both in regard to private motoring and buses both for tile duty and for the price increase. We have assessed the indirect results in respect of the element of transport costs, for the carriage of goods. Those figures have been given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Second Reading and were given by me at Question Time on Tuesday this week.
The short point is that we are here concerned cumulatively only with a fraction of a point in the cost-of-living index. Therefore, I submit that on that objective assessment we are justified in making the conclusion—indeed, it is the only conclusion that can be maintained—that the

impact on the cost of living is at once small, evenly spread and temporary in nature.
That being so, there is no basis for the possibility of inflationary pressures arising. which some hon. Members have seemed to apprehend. It would, of course, be possible, but, equally, it would be quite wrong and reprehensible to, as it were, take ourselves into a psychology of inflation in this context when the facts and figures show there is no justification for doing so.
In conclusion, I say the increase in the duty is linked, and now statutorily linked, to the duration of petrol rationing. Both those things, the increase in duty and petrol rationing, are temporary. Both are unwelcome, but both are appropriate and inevitable in present circumstances. We hope that the duration of both of them will be short and, as far as the Government are concerned, we will do all that lies in our power to see that that is so.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a Scottish proverb yesterday. I just forget could he tell us what it was?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Now that Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. I have some hesitation in pronouncing it, but I think it is. "Mony a mickle maks a muckle".

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I fully understand why the Economic Secretary was so brief in moving the Third Reading of the Bill. The brevity with which he moved it was in direct contrast with the rush with which the Bill has passed through its various stages. But now that the Chancellor has surrendered to the pressure from these benches, and also to that from his own back benchers, who staged a second Suez revolt, as it were, during Second Reading, although, admittedly, that revolt was in a better cause than that which came from the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), and since the Chancellor has written "temporary" into the Bill as well as putting it in its Title, it seems to me ludicrous that the Bill should have been presented to this House and that the House should have been compelled to spend three Parliamentary days upon it. Those days could have been far better spent in other debates—for instance, in a


debate on Hungary, the question of which was raised earlier this afternoon.
The Bill is now in a form whereby petrol rationing is, as the Economic Secretary pointed out, linked with the end of this additional tax. It is for a temporary period, which the Chancellor himself, in parenthesis in his speech on Second Reading, suggested might be for four or five months. This temporary measure is for the purpose of raising revenue of only £30 million. In view of the dislocation and inconvenience which this increase in the tax on fuel oil will bring about, it is questionable whether the Bill was worth while introducing and whether it is justified.
The Chancellor himself, during his statement on the economic situation on 4th December. stated that the overall out-turn of the Budget will be no better and no worse than he forecast in April. In other words, he still anticipates that the Budget will fulfil his expectations; and the expectation, of course, is that the Budget will have an overall surplus of a considerable amount. In view of that, is it necessary that this dislocation and inconvenience should be caused simply to bring in this extra £30 million to recoup the loss of revenue which the Suez misadventure has caused? To recoup the loss of revenue an additional burden is to be imposed upon the whole community, a burden which, despite what the Economic Secretary said, will bring about a rise in the cost of living and will affect the position of every member of the community.
The tax which is being increased is one which has a greater incidence on the cost of living than most other indirect taxation. It increases the cost of transport directly as far as road passenger travel is concerned and thereby it has a direct effect upon the expenditure of the whole community. About 90 per cent. of passenger travel today is estimated to be essential travel. In other words, the amount of travel which is optional is very small compared with that which is essential.
People who travel to and from work daily have to pay out their pence or shillings every day and any increase mounts up in a matter of weeks or months and substantially within the year. The increased tax will bring hardship to a considerable number of workers, but it also affects indirectly the cost of manufacture

and of distribution, because the increase in transport costs is imposed upon every process of manufacture and distribution in which transport is involved. This accumulates, snowballs, as it were, and the effect is considerable.
When the Economic Secretary suggests that the impact on the cost of living is small, thinly spread and temporary as he did this afternoon, I would certainly say that that is open to question. The amount will not be small when the cumulative effect is taken into consideration. The money which is paid out daily by those who travel and the extra cost of all commodities into which the cost of transport enters will not be small, nor is it thinly spread. It is spread over the whole of the community and it is considerable.
Nor do I accept the Economic Secretary's claim that the increase will be temporary. The increase in tax, we are told, is to be temporary, but does the Economic Secretary really believe that the increases in fares and in the cost of road transport and in a large number of commodities will disappear as soon as petrol rationing and the additional tax comes to an end? Of course it will not. Our experience has always been that once prices are raised they do not come down. There are exceptions, but it is very difficult to accept that there is any likelihood of these fares and transport costs and the costs of commodities declining as soon as the increased tax comes to an end.
As far as road transport is concerned, the increase of the 1s. in the tax, under Clause 1, comes on top of difficulties with which the transport industry was already faced. Now with the higher price of petrol—

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman reconciles what he says about fares with the provisions of Clause 2 (4) of the Bill.

Mr. Davies: If the Economic Secretary exercises his customary patience, I was going to deal with that aspect before I finished my remarks.
The road transport industry is already dislocated by, first, the introduction of rationing, and secondly, by the higher price of petrol, by the 5d. imposed by the petroleum companies. The fact that the ration for the goods transport


undertakings is only a basic ration of 40 per cent. of their normal consumption—in addition, a certain supplementary allowance will be provided if need is proved—will cause considerable muddle and confusion in the industry. The smaller mileage, and, therefore, the lower traffics which will be carried, is bound to reduce the profits of the operators.
In most cases, charges in the industry would have gone up in any event, whether this increased tax had been imposed or not. In some cases it might have been absorbed, but the costs would not have had to rise anything like as much as they will have to rise, or have risen already, as a result of the tax. It is interesting to note that in the case of the nationalised British Road Services, the increase, so far, is 7½ per cent. In the case of the private hauliers, the increase is higher, at 10 per cent.
It is quite clear that the larger organisation, operating on a large scale and with its common ownership with the railways, by being able to organise the transport of its goods and parcels by rail containers, by the transfer of a certain amount of its trunk haulage also to the railways, and by organising rail heads and the like, is able to operate on a more economic basis, and can reorganise the carriage of its traffics so that it has not to put up its charges to the same extent as have private enterprise organisations.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for The Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) yesterday, the position of the private hauliers is very serious. He stated:
It stems to me that there is only one thing which can save the road haulage industry from ending in Carey Street in the next six months …
He went on:
The vital fact is that unless the road hauliers can got approximately 80 per cent. of their normal petrol requirements, anything less will mean that they will immediately he facing a severe loss."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December. 1956; Vol. 562, c. 496.]
One cannot help but reflect that by putting this extra shilling tax on these private road hauliers, the Government are putting into queer street these very persons whom they were going to help come back into the industry with denationalisation. The Economic Secretary will recall that special action was taken by the Government to relax hire-purchase agreements

so that the private hauliers could borrow on easy terms from Mr. Gibson Jarvie, and come back into the industry.
Now, those very hauliers—because of this increased tax, and because they have this burden of liability around their necks—are faced with a very difficult situation. I cannot help feeling that some of them must be regretting that this freedom to re-enter the industry was so generously given to them by the Tory Government. They must wonder whether their share in this property-owning democracy is worth having.
It is true that the increased tax must end with rationing—it must now end within one month of that event—but with the higher fuel prices, and with these losses which private enterprise hauliers now face, can hon. Members really think that these increased charges of up to 10 per cent. will come down? Does it not mean that the higher tax is temporary, but that the higher charges are permanent?
I should now like to turn to the road passenger side of the industry, and to Clause 2. When I asked the Chancellor whether he would exempt public service vehicles from the increased tax, he replied:
No, Sir. I could not do that. One of the reasons, of course, is that that quantity of the oil which we most want to preserve is the one which would be most used—derv."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December. 1956; Vol. 561. c. 1066.]
That was the most extraordinary reason given by the Chancellor for imposing the extra 1s. tax. It was the first indication we had that the tax was put on to discourage the use of motor fuel by public transport. After all, under the petrol restriction scheme, public transport consumption is restricted by 10 per cent. Its total consumption has been fixed at 10 per cent. less than normal. Surely, with the rationing of petrol for private motoring, it cannot be expected that public transport can cut down its services to such an extent that it can save further fuel in order to reduce its costs.
In other words, it cannot be the policy of the Government to put on this extra tax, as the Chancellor suggested, to discourage the use of public transport and thereby enable it to cut down its full consumption. It is quite clear that this was a typically confused remark of the Chancellor's which was quite contrary to


the original purpose as explained by him and by subsequent speakers, which was to recoup the Revenue of the £30 million of which the Government's own folly has deprived them.
Clause 2 provides special procedure for road transport undertakings to increase their charges. These undertakings, like the goods undertakings, are already in some difficulty. They were already in difficulty because of rising wage and material costs, and because of some falling off in traffics. A large number of unremunerative services have long been in danger—some have been cut out. Clause 2 plays havoc with the normal procedure for fixing fares, and interferes with the pattern of transport which has emerged from the control which has been exercised for some 25 years by the Traffic Commissioners under the 1930 Act.
Section 72 of the 1930 Act provides that in considering the granting of road service licences to bus and coach operators, a very large number of factors shall be taken into account, of which fares is only one. The keeping in operation of unremunerative services, the running of necessary services with adequate frequencies and the rest, are all part of the general transport pattern which is taken into account when fares are fixed by the Traffic Commissioners.
Unfortunately, as the Traffic Commissioners are now by-passed by this Clause, it is left, for the time being, to operators to fix their own fares so as to compensate them for the increased cost of the fuel tax. I have some fear that, as a result of this, the traffic pattern will be interfered with, and the operators will do those things which the commissioners have taken such care to prevent them from doing in the past.
For instance, the Commissioners decide which fares shall go up, which shall go down, or which shall remain at the same level. In the case of concessionary fares—particularly workmen's fares—the Commissioners have exercised considerable influence. In my view, there is certainly the possibility, and, equally, the danger, that, as a consequence, the private enterprise operators will take advantage of that freedom, temporarily given to them, to impose the incidence of the increased fares in precisely those places where they have been endeavouring to

impose it in the past, but have been prevented from so doing by the commissioners. That is to say, there is the danger that workmen's fares will be brought to an end in places where the operators have been endeavouring to abolish them but have previously been prevented by the Commissioners.
It is pertinent to point out that in relation to those companies which are controlled by the British Transport Commission, the public has the right to appeal to transport users' consultative committees. In the case of those companies which are not controlled by the B.T.C., but by private enterprise, there is no such right of appeal by the public to those committees concerning complaints about services, fares, and the like.
That is important, because the Traffic Commissioners have, in the past, been the only protection which the public has enjoyed against exploitation by private enterprise companies. The traffic commissioners have exercised this power in return, as it were, for the monopoly rights which the private enterprise operators have. Therefore, there is some danger in the elimination of the Traffic Commissioners, albeit temporarily, that the private enterprise undertakings will take advantage of the situation. I referred to this last night and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who replied, I regret to say, was unable to give a satisfactory assurance on that point.
On the question of the raising of fares, there is still some confusion as to what exactly the permitted increase of 1d. in the 1s., or 1d. in 8d. so far as the smaller undertakings, largely the rural services, are concerned, is intended to cover. If one interprets the Bill literally, it says quite categorically that the increase has to cover the increase in tax, but the Chancellor, in the Second Reading debate, said:
The intention, therefore, is that the increase in costs due to the tax and the recent increase in price which the oil companies have described as an emergency surcharge—that is, the increase in price—should be met with special legislation, special methods and quite separately from the normal control of charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 45.]
That is, that this procedure under Clause 2, according to the Chancellor, was to cover not only the increase in tax but also the increase in the price of petrol


and other increased costs owing to the special emergency.
That is not how the Bill reads if it is literally interpreted. The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation stated, last night:
I am afraid that this increase must cover not only the increased tax but the increased cost of fuel."—
That confirms what the Chancellor said.
Transport undertakings must try to make up the extra cost out of savings which they hope to make by better load factors and more passengers.
That contradicts his first statement.
There is no intention to apply for increased fares arising from the increased cost of fuel during the emergency period.
So it does appear, according to both the Chancellor and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, although the latter is more muddled even than the Chancellor—and that takes some doing—that the increase up to the maximum has to cover both the increase in tax and any increased costs.
I refer to that because these increased costs will remain. The increased tax is coming off; but will these increased costs disappear? Will the 5d. addition to the price of petrol and derv disappear with the end of rationing and the increased tax? I doubt that very much indeed. The importance of this is that when the tax increase ends the special procedure to which the Economic Secretary referred in his interjection comes into play. Then the undertakings either bring the increased fares to an end, or they apply to the Transport Tribunal in the case of British Transport or to the Traffic Commissioners in the case of the other undertakings and claim that for "special reasons", which are the words in the Bill, they should continue these higher charges in operation.
Is it not obvious that most undertakings will claim that their increased costs, following the higher price of petrol and derv and other increases which may have taken place in the meantime, will justify the continuance of these higher fares? Surely that is most likely to be the case and that the "special reasons" will be brought into play to justify the continuation of the higher fares.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The reason why I ventured to interject during the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he was

giving the House the impression that there was a possibility of these fares, instituted under this emergency machinery and without examination by the Transport Commissioners continuing after the duty had gone. I think that the hon. Gentleman will admit that it is quite clear from Clause 2 (4), to which he has referred, that this will not and cannot be the case.

Mr. Davies: No, but what can be the case, as I was trying to explain, is that as soon as the increased tax comes to an end, then either the undertakings reduce their fares to the original amount or they apply, under Clause 2 (4), to the Transport Tribunal or the Traffic Commissioners, whichever is relevant, and say that for "special reasons" they wish to continue the higher fares. Then the Transport Tribunal or the Traffic Commissioners have to examine the situation and give their ruling. It is true that they come back into the picture and provide a measure of protection, but what I am trying to explain is that, in my view, the temporary nature of the increase in fares is not likely to be comparable with the temporary increase of the tax.
What is the purpose of all this? What is the purpose of this dislocation of the whole procedure of fixing fares and imposing this hardship upon the whole community? What is the result of it? The purpose is and the result is to raise a paltry £4 million during the rest of the current financial year. In other words. the system which has been built up over the last twenty-five years, and which has become the basis of protection of the transport system, is being set aside. The whole of the travelling public will have to pay higher fares, at least for a period and probably for very much longer than the temporary period, simply for the sake of bringing into the Exchequer £4 million during the rest of the current financial year.
Is it really necessary? Is it really worth while to impose this burden and inconvenience for the sake of a mere £4 million, when one looks at the size of the Budget and the fact that the Chancellor is confident that he will end the financial year with a very considerable balance? This rationing, combined with the tax and higher fuel prices, is leading to chaotic conditions in the road haulage industry, which was already dislocated by the Government's transport


policy. It is upsetting the pattern of control of the road passenger transport industry and imposing a considerable burden upon the travelling public. In the case of the British Transport Commission alone, the extra cost of the tax and the extra cost of petrol will be at the rate of about £8 million a year. That is the measure of the burden on this nationalised concern.
This Bill results directly from the Suez fiasco. It is a poor attempt to recoup the Treasury by a fraction of the total cost that that misadventure entailed. To raise the £30 million lost as a result of an oil shortage brought about by the Government's own piece of incredible folly, a fresh burden is imposed upon the travelling public and upon all users of road transport. It causes a rise in the cost of living with all its inflationary effects, 3n spite of the Economic Secretarys' remarks. The effects are inflationary because of the cumulative effect of the higher transport charges and the inevitability of claims for higher wages.
This is a most unintelligent and trivial way of attempting to deal with the serious economic consequences of Suez. This is a pointless Bill, the financial gain from which is in inverse ratio to the inconveniences and dislocation which it causes. As we believe that the Bill is bad and should be dropped, we shall have no alternative but to divide against it on Third Reading.

4.41 p.m.

Sir R. Cary: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has raised a most important aspect of the Bill. It arises on Clause 2. I tried on Second Reading to make this case myself. It is important to bear in mind the impact of this duty on the road operating services and, in particular, on the road passenger services, so far as it affects the present structure of negotiations for fare increases in order to meet wage demands and increased operating costs.
If my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary would look at this new tax quite separately, divorced from the background against which it is imposed, one would not have much complaint. Almost every increase in expenditure has an inflationary incidence. I believe that inflation has been going

on for generations. One can go back to a time when 1d. bought an immense amount which would require shillings and sometimes pounds to buy today. It seems that inflation is a natural trend which goes on the whole time. What we have to strive to do is to control that incidence, and become its master instead of allowing it to master us. That seems to me to be the secret of economic leadership. It has now become, in the critical circumstances of this country, the secret of leadership from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Rankin: Which we are not getting.

Sir R. Cary: I should like notice of that.
In short the hon. Member for Enfield, East is quite right in laying stress on the difficulty which will now confront not only the managers of the corporation fleets and the directors of the independent operating fleets, but even the Traffic Commissioners themselves, who have to decide these matters.
On Second Reading I referred to a company of which I am privileged to be a director, Lancashire United Transport. There are good links between Lancashire and Wales, and perhaps I might be forgiven by any hon. Member who sits for Wales if I cite an example of what is happening in that country. I noticed a report in the Daily Express this morning. It sent two reporters to cross-examine the companies in South Wales on the impact of this tax and they reported as follows:
All the companies in South Wales will put a halfpenny on single fares up to 5½d. and a penny on those between 6d. and 2s. to cover Increased running costs. The three major companies in the area have already applied to the licensing authority for fare increases to cover a wage award to bus crews made in November. These will be heard early in the New Year. 'This application will still go ahead in spite of the fare increases coming in next Monday' said a spokesman …";
The difficulty of imposing a new, unpredictable and inane tax like this, which by itself might be slight, is that yet another burden is placed upon the passengers in addition to perfectly legitimate fare structure claims made by the corporations and directors to meet either wage claims or the increasing incidence of operating costs.
I do not think the House appreciates the difficulties of the operating side of the


transport industry arising from the increase in operating costs. The effect is such that I expect that in a year or two, or perhaps in three years' time, some of our operating fleets may be in considerable difficulties. A fleet which is operated by the City of Cardiff has incurred a deficit during the last three or four years, and only in the last financial year has it made a small profit of £8,000 or £9,000. Of course, that will be swallowed up in increased costs.
On Second Reading, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th December, at col. 63, I said that Lancashire United Transport had granted a wage demand of 5s. and that we were proposing to try to meet that out of the company's economies. I find on further examination that no such thing is now possible. Having revised my opinion, I believe that my company will almost certainly seek the aid of the Traffic Commissioners in order to provide that 5s. wage increase which was given in November last.
I agree with that part of the Bill which provides that when the emergency is over, the additional tax will lapse, but, as I have said before. I hope that if it should lapse, say, on the fifth of the month the Treasury will not wait until the end of the month before making an order, and that these additional charges, slight though they may be, will be dropped as soon as this emergency is over.
There arise on the Bill many matters which would be best discussed in the debate on economic affairs on Thursday next week. Therefore, I will not delay the House any longer on the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for the speed with which they have brought the Bill before the House. I wish to express my gratitude again to the Economic Secretary for the gesture which has been made with regard to the timing, and I hope—we are all in this together—that this emergency will end as soon as possible.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I fear that I cannot entirely agree with the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) in thanking the Government for the speed with which they have introduced this Measure. It seems to me to suggest a somewhat indecent haste, as though there were something furtive about it. I had hoped that the Economic Secretary

would have had the grace to adopt an apologetic mien when he said that the Second Reading was only 72 hours ago, but his own speech was of sufficient brevity to indicate that he felt, at least internally, shamefaced.
The hon. and learned Gentleman gave various reasons why he lauded this Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading this afternoon. He made a particular point, as have all his predecessors, of saying that it will make a very small difference to the cost of living, particularly the cost-of-living index. It is high time that the Government realised that they are governing human beings, not indices. There is nothing more fallacious than this cost-of-living index; it is based upon a mean which does not exist in reality, and it is entirely a theoretical conception. The unfortunate people who have to pay extra fares, the unfortunate housewives who have to pay more for their purchases, do not think of cost-of-living indices but think entirely in terms of what comes out of their pockets. I wish the Government would realise that.
The Economic Secretary quoted the Economist to assist his argument. He said that the Economist stated that the cost of living would increase as a result of this Bill only by the total amount of the tax receipts. This is a somewhat jejune statement, even from the Economist, because it ignores entirely the system of trading in this country. The wholesaler makes a profit, which is a percentage of what he pays out, and the retailer makes a further percentage. Those percentages will be based on increased transport costs, so that there will be a considerable price rise greatly in excess of the actual increase in tax receipts drawn by the Exchequer.
The Economic Secretary emphasised that the Bill is going to have an entirely temporary effect. We on this side of the House are not entirely reassured by this suggestion. He gave, as two of the reasons for the Bill, that there would be a loss of revenue to be made up and there is a balance of payments situation to be dealt with. As far as loss of revenue goes, we understand from a quite unprecedented statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be an increase of Income Tax in three months' time.

Mr. Rankin: Is that so?

Mr. Cronin: Yes.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is going to make that sort of remark, he ought to be careful to quote the precise words of my right hon. Friend's statement in that regard on 4th December.

Mr. Cronin: Like most hon. Members of this House, I hang on the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not to the extent of memorising every word he says.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a prudent precaution, before making a quotation, that one should check it?

Mr. Cronin: I was not making a quotation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cronin: May I say in my defence. Sir Charles, it being an important matter from the point of view of precedent in the House, that I was not making a quotation; it was merely a piece of oratio obliqua.
The Economic Secretary said that the Bill was to be temporary. I suggest it is quite fallacious that our future oil difficulties are going to be due only to the physical obstruction of the Suez Canal. We must bear in mind that most of our oil resources are in the safe keeping of Arab nations who now have very little reason to be pleased with us.
In suggesting that this oil shortage was going to be temporary, the Economic Secretary is, in my view, going a little ahead of what one can reasonably achieve by mental calculation. We know the hon. and learned Gentleman is a very clever and able person, but I feel that we are entitled to have legitimate doubts about his powers of clairvoyance.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Treasury's interpretation of "temporary" might be very different from his own, and from ours? The Excise Duty itself was a "temporary" Measure.

Mr. Rankin: So was Income Tax.

Mr. Cronin: I am obliged to my hon. Friends for reinforcing my argument.
Returning to the subject of Clause 1, we have heard a great deal about its effect on motorists and road travellers, but I am concerned to emphasise its effect on the road transport industry of the nation. Every progressive nation tries to increase the efficiency of its road transport. One of the most important objects is to make road transport cheaper. The actual effect of Clause 1 will, quite simply, be to increase transport costs on all raw materials coming into the country and on all finished products going out of the country for export.
Exactly the same effect could be achieved, if the Treasury wished to raise transport costs, by employing large numbers of men to use picks and dig holes in the roads. There are many ways in which transport costs could be increased. I suggest it is a most retrograde step to impede our industrial resources by increasing these costs. We are thereby giving our competitors abroad a very helpful advantage.
The effect of the Bill on the motor industry itself, of course, is calamitous in every possible way. The motor vehicle manufacturing industry is, as everyone knows, now laying off very large numbers of its workers and greatly diminishing production. But apart from the immediate effect in the motor industry, there is the long-term effect. There will be a tendency, during the next few months, for cars to be designed for the purpose of economising on petrol. Most hon. Members will remember how, in the inter-war years, there was a tendency to keep cars small so that they would be able to avoid the quite absurd horsepower tax. This Bill will have the same effect; there will be a tendency to keep cars small in order to economise on petrol. This again will give a very great advantage to foreign competitors who do not have to think about such things.
The effect on the retail side of the motor industry is equally disastrous. Retailers of new cars are in a very difficult position, but the retailer of secondhand cars is in desperate straits. Any retailer who has a car of large horsepower or high petrol consumption has very little he can do with it except drive it to a rubbish dump and leave it there; there is now simply no sale at all for


any large horse-power car as a result of the practical and psychological effects of the Bill.
Some attention should be paid also to the unfortunate business men and industrialists who are trying to maintain this country's balance of trade. Every year they have more frequently to make calculations as to costs, profits and prices, and continually these calculations are upset by the present Government in making constant changes in taxation. if only people knew that this would be a regular feature—if we could have a Finance (No. 3) Bill instead of this furtive insertion of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill—people would know exactly where they were and be able to make their calculations. Instead, we have this appallingly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Clause 1 will also have a deleterious effect on the tourist trade. Many people from across the Channel and elsewhere abroad would normally be attracted to this country by the comparative cheapness of petrol. As a result of the Bill that differential will disappear and there will be less likelihood of people crossing the Channel to tour this country by car.
This is a regressive tax and a tax on a commodity which affects every member of the community to a great or lesser extent. When I say "to a greater or lesser extent" I emphasise that the tax will chiefly affect people of the lower income groups. It may seem obvious, at first, that the tax will chiefly affect people with their own cars, who buy petrol for solitary journeys or for journeys for themselves and their families, but it must be remembered that the majority of cars which are taxed in this country are run by professional or commercial people and the expense counts against their incomes for Income Tax purposes. The richer a man is, the more Surtax he pays, the less he will be affected by this tax. The unfortunate people who will be most affected are those who are dependent on public transport and travel by bus. The effect of the tax seems to be the very opposite of what good taxation should achieve. It is a most regressive and undesirable tax.
In Clause 2 (4) there is a provision to enable fares to be continued at a raised rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) touched

on this matter. As the Bill is drafted, it seems possible for raised fares resulting from the Bill to be continued indefinitely, even though the tax is later removed from hydrocarbon oils.
I think there is an important constitutional principle involved. It is unattractive that legislation should be delegated in this manner. We in the House are accustomed to the idea that legislation is delegated to Ministers to save the time of the House, but in Clause 2 (4) we find legislation delegated to traffic commissioners and transport tribunals, for London at any rate. This seems to me to be a highly undesirable constitutional principle. The Economic Secretary is wrinkling his brows over this. I hope he will study this subsection more closely to see what I mean.
I suggest that the Bill is enormously unpopular in the country and in the House. It is noteworthy that the only hon. Members who have spoken well of it are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two close assistants, the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Rankin: Two yes-men.

Mr. Cronin: It is particularly noticeable that hon. Members have had the grace to leave the other side of the House comparatively empty. It is quite clear that the Bill is most unpopular with the Government side of the House. It is certainly detested on this side of the House and regarded by the rest of the country as a calamity.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I think it can fairly be said that although the Bill may be a small Bill it is nevertheless a shattering indictment of Tory policy during the last few months. It is also, in my view, a reflection of the desperate straits to which the Government have been reduced on the oil and petrol situation, because it appears that, despite the long preparations which they made for the war in Egypt, they did not take the necessary precautions to safeguard the oil stocks of this country. That is the reason for the rigorous nature of the scheme which they are compelled to impose.
I should like to place the Bill against the background which the Chancellor painted when playing the part of "Doctor in the House" a week ago last Tuesday.

Mr. Cronin: "Doctor at Sea."

Mr. Rankin: Perhaps that is a better description.
He made a very close examination of the patient after the mishandling he has had over the last few months and came to the conclusion that his reserves were very seriously depleted. His pipelines were completely blocked and because of that a new passage would have to be made in another direction. This indicated the very serious condition to which the patient had been reduced. The doctor said that in order to expedite his recovery he would need to reduce the patient's internal demands. On this side of the House, I think, we might have suggested less Tory cooking and the removal of Suez pudding from his diet.
It is in the light of the doctor's diagnosis that the patient's internal demand must be reduced, I take it, that this little Bill has been introduced. The prescribed bottle will say "Two tablespoonfuls, according to doctor's orders," and, to put temptation further away from the patient, the price of the bottle is to be increased.
The strange thing, as we on this side of the House have been trying to show, is that the Bill will not reduce internal demand or restrain it. It will increase internal demand. The Bill is brought in at a time when the cost of living is being forced up by the Government in a number of different directions—rents, the withdrawal of subsidies, the increase in fares for transport. These imposts, in addition to that imposed by the Bill, will result, cumulatively, not in restraining demand but in increasing it. They are bound to have an inflationary effect of the kind which the Chancellor ought to be seeking to control or resist at this time.
As hon. Members have indicated, many of us have had protests about the effects of the Bill on the wages of our constituents. Yesterday I had a detailed protest from a taxi-cab man in my division. This Bill will place him and many more of my constituents in very serious financial straits. We are told in the Bill that that will be remedied because the taxi-cab man in my division and others like him throughout the country will be able to charge 6d. more on every journey, which, it is claimed, will safeguard their position.
At the same time, the Minister of Fuel and Power refuses to give them enough petrol for their cabs to earn sufficient extra sixpences. We are told that he will make these new allocations for them as quickly as he possibly can, but we have no indication yet when that will be. These men are going to suffer financially at a time when the cost of living is rising against them. The Government's excuse is that the taxi drivers will get sixpence more for every journey, but there is no guarantee that they will he able to run their cabs sufficiently often to earn the additional money.
It would be wrong of me, as a Scottish Member, although, of course, speaking for an English interest, too, to allow this Bill to go through without making at least a passing reference to the effects the Bill will have on our oil industry in Scotland; effects about which a very vigorous protest has been made from this side of the House. I would point out to hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is not a peculiarly Scottish grievance because in Nottinghamshire, too, there is an oil industry, which will be affected by the Bill similarly to Scotland's shale oil industry. I believe that there is an oil industry in Kent, too.
I do not know how active the oil industry is in Nottinghamshire or in Kent. Nevertheless, the oilfields we have at home ought to be carefully nursed and not handicapped more than is necessary. The Treasury is handicapping them by the infliction of this Is. tax. To do this now, to put this extra tax on the oil industry of the Lothians, of Nottinghamshire or of Kent, is completely wrong. It is without sense.

Mr. E. G. Willis: How can my hon. Friend expect this Government to have any sense?

Mr. Rankin: I would try to encourage them to be sensible. If they have no sense, my effort will be futile. I hope they have a few drops of sense and my words may sink in.
When a thirsty man is travelling in the desert and comes across a place where there are a few drops of water, he does not say they are of no use to him because there are only a few. He carefully tries to save them. The Government are saying that because there are, as it were, only a few drops of oil coming from our


own oil industry they are valueless. They say they are too small to take note of, or they think themselves too big to take note of them. Instead of casting those drops aside, the Government should try to squeeze every possible drop out of the industry to help us in the predicament which the Chancellor acknowledges we are in.
Instead, he imposes this handicap of the extra 1s. tax on an industry which is already handicapped. If the Government think this industry has little to contribute to help to meet the immediate needs of the country or its long-term needs, let them be honest about it. Even if they have no sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) suggests, we hope that there is at least some honesty among them. If there is, they should have told us yesterday that this industry is of little consequence to Scotland and the United Kingdom, that it has no contribution to make to our economic well-being and that they intend to destroy it. They have no intention of helping it so that it can make, as I am certain it can, a significant contribution to the economic well-being of the country.
You will realise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from what I have said that I do not think much of this Bill.

Sir R. Cary: We had our suspicions.

Mr. Rankin: I am glad I have confirmed the suspicions. I had the same suspicion about the hon. Baronet the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary). Seeing that we are both suspicious of the Bill, I hope that when I go into the Division Lobby tonight against it the hon. Baronet will follow me.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I agree with one of the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that we are all in this together. That is the unfortunate thing about it. It is unfortunate that the just and the unjust are having to suffer alike in this adventure. I realise why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even his lieutenants, the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary, are so reluctant to defend the Bill. After all, it is a child of the Suez Group. It has little to do with the Chancellor and his lieutenants. As a child of

the Suez Group it bears all the same distinguishing features which that ill-starred adventure bore. The Bill has not been thought out by the Government to its logical consequence any more than was that adventure. The Government have not seen where they are going or whither the Bill will lead them.
There are some questions, the answers to which the whole country wants to know, which I would ask the Financial Secretary. First, how long is "temporary"? I suppose one may as well ask how long is a piece of string as hope to get an answer to that question from the Financial Secretary, but it is important that we should have some idea of what the Government think about temporary, and of how long they think it is. The ration tickets, I understand, are for four months. Many people optimistically believe that rationing will end when the first book is exhausted. Can we have any crumb of comfort for them tonight?
This tax is linked with the supply of petrol. The supply can come through the Suez Canal when it is cleared; it can come round the Cape; it can come through the broken pipelines when they are repaired, and some can come from the United States of America. What we really ought to be talking about tonight is the prospects of the repair of the pipelines. For instance, how long will it take before the normal flow of the supply is resumed? How long, on the most optimistic estimate, is it likely to be before tankers go through Suez? Will it be four months, or six months or not for a year? How long will it take to get an adequate supply coming round the Cape? How long will it take to make the fullest use of the tankers which are now available, coming round the Cape? How far are the Government prepared to go in the expenditure of dollars on the purchase of American petrol to make up our deficit? On the answers to these questions depends the reckoning of how long "temporary" is likely to be.
At what level do the Government think our stocks of petrol should be before they take off rationing? Are the stocks to be equal only to what we had before, or sufficient to ensure the same use of petrol as before? Are the Government going to build up a reserve, or are they hoping that we can operate on 90 per cent. of the stock we


had before? At the beginning of these difficulties we were operating on a 10 per cent. cut. When the petrol supplies are 90 per cent. of what they were, do the Government anticipate taking off the tax and abolishing rationing?
I wonder how far the Government have tied rationing to the tax. It may produce embarrassments for them in the future. It may lead them to keep rationing for far longer than they would otherwise have done, in order to make up revenue, and to deal with the balance of payments problem. It may prevent them from buying as much American oil as they would otherwise have done. I am absolutely sure that it would have been better to have provided in the Bill a fixed date, 4th April or whatever date was deemed best. It would have meant that the Government would have had to come to the House again if they wanted to extend the time of its operation. Now we are told that within one month of the end of petrol rationing the tax will go.
I am sure that from the arguments that we have heard from the Government about the small effect that this tax would have on the cost-of-living index many people will be sorry indeed that the Government have seen fit to impose the tax at all. But the Government do not seem to realise the cumulative effect of the tax throughout the whole of our buying and spending. We are not concerned with the cost-of-living index. We are concerned with the standard of living of every individual.
We are told that the 2½d. fare will be the only one that will be affected, but the person who will be most affected by that increase will be the housewife who generally has to do just a 2½d. journey for her shopping, in the London area particularly. Now she will have to pay an extra Id. for the journey there and back every time she goes out shopping. On top of that there will be the indirect effects of passing on the transport charges to the cost of commodities. I am sure that the indirect effects of the tax will be much more far-reaching than the Government have anticipated. They have misunderstood the public reaction to the tax.
Can the Financial Secretary to the Treasury offer any hope to the motoring public that by the summer of next year. when most people are thinking in terms of

taking their families on holiday, the rationing will be off? I listened with dismay to the Economic Secretary's argument when he delivered his very brief speech about the effect of this increased tax on the cost of living. He seems to think that all that it will mean will be a pimple on the Chancellor's plateau. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] After all, that is what it boils down to. It is a small rise.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: On which part of the Chancellor's anatomy is this plateau?

Mr. Chetwynd: This will not be a pimple on the Chancellor's plateau; it will be a considerable carbuncle. I do not know where carbuncles occur, but in any case this Measure will bring about a series of massive eruptions on the plateau which will lead to considerable economic difficulty for the Government. I am absolutely certain that in their heart of hearts the Government must be convinced that this adventure in taxation is just as misguided as the original adventure into Suez.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I do not know whether I shall be out of order in saying this, but in order to save petrol or fuel, the biggest firm of multiple grocers in Portsmouth has sold all its heavy lorries and now has light vans. The firm is now told that it can have no extra rations for any vehicle of under a ton weight holding a C licence. This will make it impossible for the firm to deliver goods.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be equally impossible for the hon. Baronet to continue with that speech.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. McLeavy: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in his speech following the Economic Secretary on Third Reading. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill is unnecessary, unrealistic and in many ways seems to be panic legislation without any very serious thought having been given to its consequences upon the community at large. We have been told—and this has been incorporated in the Bill—when the extra 1s. tax will be discontinued, but we must bear in mind, in considering this extra temporary tax, that whether its duration is a few months or much longer all depends upon the supply of oil and how the


international position develops. It could go on for a very considerable time, but however long it may go on, the fact remains that the increases in the cost of living which it will undoubtedly bring about will still be there when the tax has been removed.
The Road Haulage Association has increased its charges by 10 per cent., and British Road Services by 7½ per cent. It is clear that they may be able to take off those extra percentages when the tax is removed, but there will be no possibility of really bringing down the cost of living which has been increased as a result of the tax. The Economic Secretary tried to suggest that the people who were arguing that this will mean an increase in the cost of living were misrepresenting the real effects of the Bill. Everyone knows that in the ordinary business way an increased charge on the road haulage industry is passed down the line to the wholesaler and the distributor, both in the retail and other sections of the industry.
Everybody has to meet the extra 10 per cent. They must adjust their charges accordingly. Some will be careful to make adjustments near the figure. Others will say that this is a glorious opportunity for putting on as much as they can. The sum total will be that when the goods get to the consumer they will be considerably increased in price.
The road passenger transport industry works upon a very small margin of profit. In the main, the people who own shares in the companies in the private sector of the industry are people who are not looking for very high dividends but for a fair and reasonable investment for their money. Generally speaking, I think that the private sector of the passenger transport industry has really tried to play its part in providing a passenger transport service for the country which would meet the community's requirements.
It seems to me unfortunate, therefore, that the Government, in bringing about these proposals, should not have paid due regard to the financial difficulties of these undertakings. It is quite clear, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) told us, that many of these companies are having difficulties. Applications from the private sector of the

passenger transport industry are being considered now by the Traffic Commissioners because of the very heavy financial burdens that are imposed upon the industry.
This 1s. will add a further burden that can be offset by some adjustment without resort to the Traffic Commissioners, but we ought not to try to fool the general public about it. It should be made clear to the public that, even when this 1s. tax upon fuel oil is removed, we shall not return to the rate of fares which applied prior to its introduction. The simple reason is that meanwhile the costs of the industry will rise, and the circumstances that will be created will present a position in which it will not be reasonable or proper to expect that these increased fares should be discontinued.
Taking the municipal undertakings as a typical example, at the present time at least 50 per cent. of those undertakings are facing a deficit, some of them are considerable. They have tried to play the game with the Government. They have tried to keep down the cost of fares in order to keep down the cost of living. Many of them have struggled along with a deficit in their accounts, not merely for a year but for several years, and they find the position is becoming impossible.
That is why I say that, with the increase in the cost of living, with the possible increase in wages to those in their employment and with the increased price of equipment, which is very great, it would be foolish to mislead the general public into believing that, when the extra Is. on fuel oil is withdrawn, we shall revert to the fares that prevailed prior to its introduction.
Frankly, I have never thought that any Government since the war has dealt with the problems of the road transport industry as it should have done. I am making no distinction here between one side of the House and the other. I believe this to be so vital to the economy of our nation and to the well-being of our community that it should receive from Parliament far closer and much more realistic consideration than it has received previously. So whether this tax is of long or short duration, I believe it will be necessary for Parliament to reconsider the basis of taxation for road transport.
This is not the proper time to make any suggestions in that direction, but I am sure that those of us on both sides of the House who are interested in road transport will be able to make representations to the Chancellor at the appropriate time. I regret very much the Economic Secretary should try to brush aside the serious representations of those who have been associated with transport over many long years. We are not irresponsible people. We realise that this tax, both on the passenger and on the road haulage side of transport, will create a higher cost of living than the Treasury seemed to think from an examination of the figures. It has been said that figures can be made to lie, and there is considerable truth in that statement, because one can take a set of figures and read into them what one wishes. Yet those of us who have had to deal with the hard facts of the road transport industry know very well that when a position is reached where taxation is beyond common sense or reason, the industry is bound to suffer on that account.
Finally, I believe that this Bill is unnecessary. I believe that the Chancellor would have been wiser had he said, "We will carry the £30 million loss on the estimated revenue for this financial year." I believe that would have given a breathing space for a proper examination of how to meet the loss in this sector of the Budget. Also it would have given an opportunity for consultations and for representations to be made to the Chancellor for meeting any future loss in a more wide-spread fashion. I believe that the Government have acted in haste, that their proposal is unrealistic, and that it will do more harm to the economy of this country than the Government want the nation to believe at the present time.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: It is not without significance that within the course of this Third Reading debate only two hon. Gentlemen opposite have been prepared to appear in this Chamber to say something about the Bill. It is also not without significance that both the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) should have been critical of the Government and of the Bill in what they said. Yet in view of all that is going on, and since speech after

speech has had to be made from this side of the House, the Prime Minister might be advised when he returns to this country to recommend to Her Majesty that some new baronets should be created for the other side of the House who can be present when legislation needs to be debated.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, South rushed into the House, asked a question that nobody seemed to understand, and rushed out again. He seemed to be making the criticism that certain operators of transport in his constituency had been compelled to sell their lorries and to buy small vans in order to get goods to the docks, but none of us understood precisely what he was talking about.
In the few minutes I shall occupy I want to revert to the question mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) which was mentioned at greater length by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington. It dealt with the aspect of local authority undertakers and especially with the double approach they will have to make to their constituents and to the users of municipal transport.
The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that sometimes an illustration is better than general arguments in a matter of this kind. I am told by the town clerk of the City of Salford that the municipal transport undertaking has faced an additional cost of £56,000 as a result of the six months' working since June, and that sooner or later—probably very soon—it will have to make an approach to the Traffic Commissioners to enable it to impose an additional transport charge. On top of that, from next week it will have to face an additional cost of £54,000 as a direct result of this Measure.
I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what exactly is the difficulty facing this authority. The transport organisation in Salford is run by public representatives, men elected to the council by the city electors, and they are obviously loth at any time to increase their transport fares. However, willy-nilly, they have to face the £56,000 loss incurred during the past six months, and now the Government are compelling them—that is what it amounts to—to increase their fares to meet an additional


charge of £54,000 in respect of petrol. I want the Government fully to appreciate what it means for public representatives to ask the users of their transport to pay additional charges.
Is it not also a fact that the tax itself will have a tendency to increase the cost of living? There is not only the additional duty; there is also the increase in the cost of fuel. Consumer goods will rise in price to some degree, as a result of which there will be more and more wage claims. As a result, we have a crazy vicious circle. The situation is not helped by the Government's action in this Measure.
We are told that the provision is temporary. Some hon. Friends of mine have expressed their view of its "temporary" character. I have another illustration which raises doubt in my mind. The late Sir Kingsley Wood imposed post-war credit legislation on the country in the middle of the war with the assurance, "You will get it back if you lend it to the country," but he did not tell the country that years later the Government would take steps to return the money, without interest, when people reached 65 years of age. I am concerned that the Measure which the Chancellor has now introduced as a temporary one may be required by him for much longer than he is at present prepared to indicate. In spite of the Amendment dealt with on Report, I must confess that I have very grave doubts about the early removal of the tax.
My attention was drawn yesterday to the case of a one-lorry man. He had been encouraged by the Government to purchase a lorry when road transport was denationalised. It was because the Government gave him the opportunity that he bought a lorry. Having insufficient capital he had to buy it on hire purchase. Within a short period of having obtained the lorry, with about two-thirds of the payments on it still to be met, he finds that his petrol allocation is to be only one-seventh of what he has been using for his business.
I suggest that the Government might have taken one course or the other, that of rationing petrol or that of putting up the price. To do both represents an imposition upon all motor fuel users. We have all observed during the last few days

that petrol at 6s. 0½d. per gallon is easy to obtain. Only a few days ago there were queues of cars a quarter of a mile long at filling stations. Because of the increased tax, one can drive straight into a filling station and obtain petrol without delay. Consequently, I suggest that it was unnecessary for both methods to be applied at the same time
I am thankful to be the owner of a Morris Minor car. I might have been the owner of a Rolls Royce or a Bentley, and then I should have been in a mess with petrol at its present price. Thousands of people in the country who own small cars must be very pleased that the burden upon them is no greater. The important people are not, however, the private motorists but the municipal undertakings and the owners of haulage vehicles. The repercussions in those industries are important.
The Government have made a very bad mistake. Only two hon. Members opposite have been prepared to speak in the Third Reading debate, and I suggest that their criticism ought to lead them into the Lobby with us. They ought to protest by their votes as they have protested by their voices during the debate.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Withington said in his concluding remarks that he was grateful to the Chancellor for having got the Bill through so quickly. I share the view of my hon. Friends that the fact that the Government have rushed the Bill through the House within seventy-two hours is a clear indication that they are ashamed of what they are doing. As all of this arises from their shocking policy in the Middle East, I am not surprised that they are rushing it through. This is something upon which we shall look back with a great deal of shame, and I shall never have been happier in recording a vote in this House than I shall be in voting against the Bill tonight.

5.50 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will be relieved to have at least one speech from this side of the House made by an hon. Member who is not a baronet. I am not sure of the difference between a baronet and a baron of beef.


He probably has a better acquaintance with the difference.
I wish to direct my few remarks to an aspect of the imposition of the tax and the situation in general as it affects the more remote parts of the countryside, in particular my three counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. Already it has been intimated to me that a bus service which has been running in that area for a considerable time is not to be reduced by the amount which the Government desire to make in fuel saving but to be eleminated altogether.
The impact of that is something which the countryside will not be able to accept. If it is forced to accept it, there will be great difficulties for the people in the valleys of Yarrow and Ettrick, who purchase their food and such forms of entertainment as they can get by going into the burghs, if the services are not reinstated—and I understand that they are to be ended tomorrow.
These two valleys are served twice a week—and only twice a week—by a bus operated by Scottish Motor Omnibuses Limited. The buses run from Yarrow, through Yarrowfords, through the Ettrick Valley, across Ettrick-Bridge-End and back to Selkirk. I must give notice to my right hon. Friends that if the Scottish Motor Traction organisation, to which I have already submitted a report on this aspect, is not able to reinstitute its service, it will be essential for the Government to consider the matter at a high level.
The countryside of Scotland and other parts of Britain has been affected by many things. Certainly great good has been done in the past by Scottish Motor Traction and Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. in providing services, where needed, in more remote areas. We are facing not a reduction but complete elimination of services, and that matter will have to be reconsidered. I give notice that I shall have to raise this matter later if it cannot be adjusted at a proper level in Scotland. That is all I have to say about the Bill.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I am sorry that at this late hour I must either appeal to the Government or endeavour to shake them into consciousness about the concern this Measure has

raised. While I have never pretended to be a prophet, I am sure that the ill-effects of this Measure will echo down the corridors of time.
I can remember the Lord Privy Seal telling the country that he intended to reduce the cost of living. The first thing he did was to raise the tax on petrol.
I warned the country at the time that here was a vital ingredient in the cost of living which, more than anything else, would affect the lives of people, because the little trader runs a van and the great co-operative stores have their great fleets of vehicles distributing food. Yet the Government have the effrontery to tell us that the increase will not mean a rise in the cost of living. I say that it will, and it will drive the trade unions to demand more wages.
Government policy is inexplicable; we are being put back into the vicious circle. They committed the greatest political blunder in my recollection—and that goes back a long time, I regret to say—and they are now endeavouring to improve the situation by lowering the standards of living by gathering in shillings from the petrol tax and shillings from prescriptions for the sick, the needy and old-age pensioners These shillings will do them no good. They hunt these shillings with a ruthlessness comparable with a tiger hunting for prey in the forests of Bengal.
If their economics could possibly be of any benefit, we might pardon them, but there is nothing in what they have done which will solve the problems facing the country. We are told that this is only a temporary Measure, but who are the Government to look into the future and promise that it will be only temporary? Has it ever been the custom for capitalist Chancellors to implement their promises in that direction? Never. What security have the people to make them believe that there will be a diminution in the tax burden?
The Government policy is inexplicable. Petrol is so essential to the country that not only ought we to preserve our supplies but to augment them. Instead, we find the Government selling our oil assets, as with Trinidad Oil, and shutting down the natural supplies of Scotland which could be of benefit, perhaps not in an hour, a day, a week or a month. However, their action demonstrates that they


have no knowledge of the potentialities of the shale oil industry and cannel coal. Germany was compelled by economic circumstances to embark on a policy of low temperature coal distillation and so on in the 1920s and 1930s. The backbone of the German economy was its home-produced oil. We have handed the very thing upon which we depend to a primitive people in the East, or to the dollar hunters of America.
Who will doubt that America is seeking world domination in oil? Who was it who hunted the Trinidad oil reserves and is today hunting oil in the southern half of America? America does not depend on the natural flow of oil and knows that in world history the oil age will be far shorter than the coal age, and so directs its attention to research. Not our Government. They spend vast sums of money on destroying human life. In Scotland, they spend money wantonly on research into the destruction of human life quickly, and they do not care whether it is humane or not. The talk about being humane in killing the people of Egypt cuts no ice with Scottish people. What cuts ice with them is whether the Government's economic policy is successful. All we can see is the Government handing over the destinies of Britain to American millionaires, or the sheiks of the Persian Gulf.
It is perfectly true to say that the natives living by the Persian Gulf are far better off than the people who operate the oil industry of this country. In my constituency, where vast fortunes were made simply because oil can come out of the earth and be transported in ships across the ocean—which is the natural method of operating rich oil-bearing shale and oil-bearing cannel coal—the industry has been left in a state of neglect. Somebody requires to work the oil, unless the Government, by spending hundreds of millions of pounds, are able to consummate their research work into nuclear energy.
It may be the military aspect of the question which is causing the Government to neglect the shale oil works. It may be that they feel that they would be an easy target in wartime. In 1947, when we were discussing the Gas Bill in Committee, I left prematurely to go into the debate in the House to demonstrate that the retorts

which are so necessary to both high-temperature and low-temperature carbonisation could be hidden on the western slopes of the Pentlands in such a way that it would be impossible for any aircraft ever to detect them. Any aircraft from Europe would first require to cross that vast Continent and our own defensive systems would then be able to prevent any damage to the valuable retorts.
That was in 1947, but free oil was there to be got in those days. But even then it could be got only by taking money from the British taxpayer. It is the same today; the money has to come from the taxpayer. The Government are now going to take it from everyone, whether or not they can afford it. Our people in the Great Calder area will be forced to go further and further afield.
I should like to know exactly what constitutes a scheduled area. One of the first areas to be scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act was the shale field, including the Calders area. Nothing was done, due to the neglect of previous Governments. The name "scheduled area" conveys nothing to our people. It means only that their workers have to go further and further afield in order to get their bread and butter. They have to go to England, Canada, New Zealand. Australia, Africa—all over the world.
It is a dismal outlook for our people. There is no hope for them under the present Government; there is no hope under the present Measure. They can use local transport only if they pay the extra shilling, and the transport cannot run unless it pays a levy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only go back to my people and tell them of the hopelessness of the Government. The greatest tragdy that ever occurred in this country was when the electors went to the ballot offices and gave the Government a majority of 69.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) remarked upon the absence of hon. Members opposite in this debate, and upon how much we were missing their contributions to our discussion. It has been known for the party opposite to hold meetings upstairs at about this hour on Thursday afternoons, and for all I know they may be meeting now to stage a warm welcome for the Prime Minister


when he returns to the House on Monday. However that may be, there is perhaps another explanation, namely, that hon. Members opposite dislike the Bill as much as we do. When one is a supporter of the Government and dislikes a Government Bill one is rather reluctant to speak against it, and finds it preferable to stay out of the Chamber.
It is quite obvious already that the Bill contains so many seeds of trouble, difficulty, aggravation and inconvenience that it can be justified only upon overwhelming grounds of public interest. The petrol tax, however temporary, will be an awful nuisance. Many people will try to climb on to the petrol wagon and make a lot of money out of it. A great deal has been made out of it already. I heard this afternoon of a garage which had a nice full tank of 4,000 gallons when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the petrol tax. Overnight it made over £200 without putting its petrol pump into action.
That instance could be repeated all over the country. I have heard of garages which have so much petrol in store that they will not be able to take up the amount of petrol which is waiting to be delivered to them so that they may meet the rationing conditions next week. That shows that when a tax of this dimension is introduced in these circumstances many people make unjustifiable profits.
I realise that when the tax comes off we shall see the converse of that medal. When the Chancellor or the Minister of Fuel and Power is able to foreshadow the end of rationing that will indicate the end of the tax, and motorists will then be going about trying to keep their tanks empty instead of trying to get them filled. I suppose that the garage proprietors will then squeal and say, "We are carrying all this petrol in our tanks to supply motorists who are not going to buy it, and at the stroke of six o'clock one night down will go the price, and we shall be landed with petrol which we shall have to sell at least Is. cheaper the next day." I am sure that this temporary tax—and I believe that it will have to be temporary—will cause a good deal of heartburning and dislocation.
When there is a kind of general response to the imposition of a new tax and it creates an atmosphere that costs must go up all round, all traders tend to join in, whether or not they have any justification for raising their prices. I

fear that all sorts of people are going to tell their customers, "It is the petrol tax, you know. We are having to put on Id. or 2d.; it is all costing more to deliver. All prices are going up." The consumer cannot say, "Prove to me that you have to put up your prices," because he feels swept up in a general upward movement of prices attributable to this tax.
I am not going to make a sweeping statement and say that it is general practice, but I believe that it is a very widespread practice to calculate profit margins upon overhead costs and other expenses of trade or business, and that when the price of petrol goes up, and the increase is put either on distribution or the price of commodities, the profit margin will be calculated on top of that, so that in order to arrive at the final price to the consumer we have to add together both increases.
We also know that many traders like to work to a nice round figure, to the nearest 1d., 6d. or 1s. It is easier. It is the nearest figure up, rather than the nearest figure down.
All these things will contribute to the atmosphere of rising prices. Small wonder, then, that the trade union movement is getting ready to utter a warning; that if the consumers—which on the whole means the people working for their living—are to be exploited by the imposition of this tax, then they are entitled to take steps to defend themselves against injustice and exploitation. If that happens, it may add to the general upward movement of everything, and also it will add to the difficulties of going into reverse when the tax comes off. I am quite sure that if needless increases in price are to be charged on account of the petrol tax, the trade unions are certainly entitled to consider their own position in relation to this new situation.
A great deal more could be said about the tentacles of this tax which will spread throughout the whole economy. As I said a moment ago, it can be justified only by the overwhelming need of public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) referred to the loss of revenue. I beg him to dismiss from his mind any idea that it is necessary for the Chancellor to make good the loss of revenue. I do not believe


that the right hon. Gentleman need do so. He has demonstrated to the House that he needs to do no such thing.

Mr. McLeavy: My hon. Friend will agree that I suggested that the Chancellor should forgo it?

Mr. Houghton: Yes. I would speak more strongly, and say that he has no right to demand this additional tax solely because the fall in the consumption of petrol would lead to a temporary loss of revenue. His Budget is not in danger; he has said so. His Budget surplus is not in danger; he has also said that. Consequently, we can dismiss that argument and I need not deal with the economic or other needs at this moment.
We have already dealt with guarding the precious oil by taxation as well as rationing. This will not do any such thing, except to a minor extent, and perhaps even then only in directions which represent hardship and deprivation. As I see it, the only justification for this tax is to show the world that Britain is still strong, that we are determined to survive and will have no hanky-panky about devaluation and the rest of it. Whether we acted rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, we recognise that there is a price to pay and we are going to pay it. As I see it, that is the Chancellor's message, and he intends to reinforce it by this tax.
I am all in favour of the message. I believe that we have to show to the world—when the hands of people begin to tremble every time they touch the £—that they need not be too apprehensive, that our trading position is good and that our determination to survive and prosper is as strong as ever. They need not fear that Britain will wilt under the strain. Sometimes brave words will do the trick. After all, during the war the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) had to use brave words when he had little with which to fortify them, and there is no reason why we should not ask to be believed in the present crisis.
Does the House think that the world is unduly impressed by our sticking this tax on petrol in order to reinforce our message? I do not think so. I believe it to be quite unnecessary. After all, the rest of the world must understand that we are almost the most highly taxed com-

munity in the world. There is only one other country more highly taxed than we are, and that is such a rare thing that for the moment I forget which country it is. But we are heavily taxed, and I do not see that there is any particular virtue in taxing ourselves more in order to show that we are ready to make sacrifices to reinforce our economy as circumstances may require.
So I have no hesitation, once more, in opposing the tax as unjustified in present circumstances, serious as they are, as an unfair tax and as one which will sow the seeds of much discord and trouble at home. I believe the Chancellor has been quite unwise in making the proposal at this time, and the emptiness of the Government benches shows that, on the whole. hon. Members opposite agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that this is an unnecessary gesture to convince the world of our stability and economic strength. We could have got on quite as well without it. We are asking our people to put up with unnecessary irritation, hardship and inconvenience in order to underwrite the follies of Her Majesty's Government.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I doubt if he has ever spoken to this House without saying something profound and worthwhile. The hon. Gentleman wondered which nation is more highly taxed than we are. I believe it is Sweden. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that the suicide rate in Sweden is even higher than our own. I do not know whether there is any connection between the two things, but I suspect that there may be.
The hon. Member for Sowerby put his finger on a crucial point when he asked whether this tax operated in the public interest. I believe that it does. I propose to be frank enough to say, as a Conservative back bencher, that it is an unpopular tax; one which obviously was imposed by the Government with great reluctance and after careful consideration, and for reasons which I well recognise. There is not a constituent of mine who possesses a motor car, a motor cycle or a motor scooter who likes this tax. That applies not only in my constituency but in the


constituency of every hon. Member in this House. The reasons for this tax are self-evident and rather obvious.
Again the hon. Member for Sowerby put his finger on the point when he said the world is looking at us and watching every move we make. The imposition of this tax is a clear demonstration of our intention and purpose to do everything we can to maintain the stability of our finances. Secondly, unpopular as it is, this tax is bound to have some practical effect on the consumption of petrol and oil at this time. I do not expect that I shall be very popular with my constituents when I say that I believe the Government have been quite generous with the ration to the ordinary private motorist.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Too generous.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be less popular than I. At any rate, I think that under the circumstances the Minister has been quite generous. The effect of the increase of 1s. a gallon on petrol on the private motorist represents only about two packets of cigarettes a month. That is the popular way of evaluating the effects of a tax. We always use cigarettes as an example, and I believe that the Chancellor has said that the effect of this tax will amount to about 7s.

Mr. Houghton: Though we express these matters in terms of a tobacco currency, people still do not give up cigarettes.

Mr. Robson Brown: I cannot answer for what people give up. I am only mentioning tobacco as a measure of the cost.
Now let me turn to the attitude of industry and the trade unions. I bitterly deprecate what appears to be a tendency on the part of a large number of people to immediate profiteering out of the unfortunate position of the country. 1 cannot measure it it is maybe a petrol station here or an operator there. I say, in a broad, general fashion, to every employes and industrialist in the country, that it is against the national interest, utterly opposed to the national interest and completely unpatriotic, to increase in any shape or form the price of any article on the excuse of the cost of the increase in the duty.
Every section of the community should try to absorb this increase in cost. If ever there were a time in the affairs of our nation when we had to forget party politics and divisions of left and right and of employers and employees, it is now. We must face the fact that since the war we have been three steps away from the abyss and have refused to recognise it. Economic crises have followed one after the other, under both Governments. We have suffered devaluation and inflation. People in general, including employers and employed, have not been prepared to recognise the situation. Surely now, when we are standing on the very brink of it, we might come to our senses.
Employers should set an example to the nation and say that in no circumstances will they increase prices. The amounts involved are quite modest and do not justify increases. We should absorb these increases and make the sacrifice. On the other side, the trade unions might say, "If the employers will put into cold storage their demands, so will we." Perhaps the trade unions, for whom the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) always speaks with great dignity and authority, would put their demands into cold storage during the great emergency which the country is facing.

Mr. McLeavy: The hon. Member has suggested that employers should set an example. Would he agree that it would not be possible for passenger transport and road haulage undertakings to take up the increase without increasing their fares or charges?

Mr. Robson Brown: It is not possible in a general debate to go into the particular aspects of transport companies or undertakings. We all have reason to believe that the increase is not permanent and will not be continued indefinitely. It seems valid to suggest that those undertakings could, in the national interest, absorb these additional costs for three months or even six months, within their own economies.

Mr. McLeavy: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make fair contribution to the debate. Does he not appreciate that in road passenger transport most municipal authorities are already in debt? Some of them have been


in debt for a number of years and they cannot possibly carry this increased charge of 1s. 6d. the increase in tax, the increased cost of petrol and the increase in the price of fuel oil. In point of fact, they will have to put up their charges in order to meet their responsibilities.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Gentleman is very well informed on questions about municipalities, and I would defer to him. I could not venture at this moment to debate the effect of these comparatively small increases in cost on the over-all economy of any municipal undertaking. I still repeat that those that can should. They should not seek at this moment to add a farthing, a halfpenny, a penny or anything else to the cost borne by the ordinary people, whose burden is too great as it stands. In the last few days we have been pressing for in the House of Commons, and we have now had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a categorical assurance that the period of this increase in costs will be related to the ration period. We have had a complete and absolute assurance on that point. I wish we could have as complete an assurance from industry and the various undertakings who may take advantage of this situation to increase their prices, and are already doing it in some cases, that at the end of the emergency they will reduce their charges again. I very much doubt it.

Mr. Royle: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the petrol companies have already put 5d. on the price of the gallon of petrol, in addition to the present increases? Has he anything to say to them about the action that they have taken? The addition is out of all proportion to the extra cost of bringing the oil round the Cape.

Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) has touched on a valid point. Again, it is a question of the economics of the oil companies. I do not believe that any oil company has increased its price deliberately or has any desire to increase its profits in any way, but merely wishes to cover the actual cost of the inconvenience occasioned to it by this situation. I genuinely believe that. We have all our stalking horses and Aunt Sallies in this House; one of them happens to

be the oil companies I do not accept by any manner of means all the accusations that have been made against them.
In the last two or three years, I have studied the interesting oil situation in the Middle East. I can find no evidence—I repeat that—of any unreasonable attitude by any of the oil companies of the world against our interests, or any machinations by any oil companies in the Middle East against our interests. In fact, the reverse has been the position. The interests of the American oil companies in the Middle East are equally our own. Our interests are their interests, and theirs are ours. If they interfere in any way with us they interfere with themselves. One of my hopes about the Middle East is based on my belief that the interests of the one are compatible with the interests of the other.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: The only time we hear a call for unity and national solidarity is when we are asked to give support to Conservative policies which we say have always led the country into disaster. If Government supporters had made an appeal for national unity and for making sacrifices when Sir Stafford Cripps was Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should not have had the recurring crises that we have had since. It was not so. We believe in the policies which we advocate, and we believe that if they had been followed, we should not be embarking upon the Third Reading of this Bill.
The debate has been conducted in a spirit of harmony and understanding, although we feel very strongly against the Bill. We think it is a wretched, useless Bill that will add to the cost of living and will not in any way solve our economic difficulties. If it has been a harmonious debate I would pay tribute to the two Ministers. It has been their personality and presence that has contributed to the way in which the debate has been conducted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, the Government are trying to find some way in which the world can be given to believe that we shall solve our economic problems, and the way in which they are doing it is by the introduction of this tax. The Bill has been put forward speedily. Earlier this afternoon, I made


a protest about the procedure. I should have liked to see the Government act just as speedily when they announced petrol rationing. If at that time they had said they proposed to ration petrol they had put up the price of petrol and taken off that amount spent in the black market, that would have been of some use.
We have to save petrol. There is no doubt about that. We indicated that rationing was the best method, not by the purse but by the coupon. Fair shares is the way in which it should be managed, yet even in that respect more petrol has been given for pleasure motoring than to that section of the people who will help to restore the economy of the country.
Although we do not like the tax and think it unnecessary, we have done our best in Committee to suggest Amendments which would improve it. On Second Reading we suggested that there should be a time limit, and on Third Reading we are entitled to some information from the Financial Secretary. However conciliatory he may have been in saying "A month after the day rationing ends the tax will come off," there is no idea of how long it will be on. Surely the Government must have a rough idea now of when the Canal is expected to be cleared. Surely they have an idea of other sources of petrol. Surely the Americans have told them more than they told the Americans about the Suez fiasco. The Government should he able to say whether the tax will last for one, two, three, four, or perhaps a few more months—I hope not so long. They should give us an idea of how long the liability is to be with us.
Most people think of hydrocarbon oil as petrol alone. They think of service stations and garages, but we have tried throughout the debates during the Second Reading, in Committee, and now on Third Reading, to draw attention to the harm which will be done to industry generally Only about a quarter of these oils are consumed for pleasure or car services as petrol coming from service stations or garages. All the rest is used in industry in one form or another.
The trade figures have improved, but at the moment when industry is showing that it is tackling the job, particularly in the export drive, this additional burden is put upon it. It is no use the Financial

Secretary saying, as he tried to say a day or two ago, that the increase does not matter. I told some of my friends about these observations of the Government, and they said that had it been the Goverment who were competing with traders overseas they would find that the margin was so narrow that they would have been pushed out of the market.
If I understand the Treasury view aright, it is that if distinction is made between various oils and the tax is not spread over all—if diesel or some other oils are exempt—the whole of industry, and transport particularly, would tend to turn over to the oil which did not carry the tax. I can understand that because the Treasury says that it would lose money, but this increase is to be only for a short time and the Treasury knows how much will be lost and there should be no repercussion. Surely there was no need to impose this burden on industry and passenger transport services in the belief that it would not disturb the balance of the economy and do more harm.
In our judgment this tax will send up the cost of living, which will be an additional cost to the tax itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has told me that in spite of what the Government have said—than in regard to its effect on other commodities the Government hope that the removal of the tax will result in a lowering of prices, and that prices will go back to what they were before—a headline in the Evening Standard says that there is no guarantee on London fares. That seems to be the first shock. It does not look as if the cost of living will come down to what it was before the tax was put on.
As has been said by many of my hon. Friends, we know that once an article goes up in price it is very difficult to get that price down again. More often than not it remains at the higher figure. We are not satisfied that the cost of living will show a tendency to come down. On the contrary, we think it will continue to rise, with disastrous results to the economy, and cause another move towards inflation, which surely we all wish to avoid.
I believe that this petrol tax will certainly increase costs and that the damage will be higher than the Financial Secretary has estimated. It is known that it will result in increased fares, as my hog


Friends have shown, and as a result of increased charges and costs on production the cost of living generally will be increased. I have been told that the Evening Standard, or one of the London newspapers this evening, says that the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries are both troubled about the possible rise in the cost of living and difficulties which can arise from this tax.
In Committee, we appealed for relief from the tax for oils produced from shale mined in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) and others put forward powerful pleas for that industry in order that we might use indigenous material. I should have thought that that was a valuable suggestion at any time and particularly now. We also asked that dery for road passenger vehicles should not be subjected to the additional tax. We urged that hydrocarbon oils used for carrying goods and passengers should not carry the tax. I particularly urged that hydrocarbon oil used, or forming, part of the material used, in the manufacture and preparation of certain articles ought not to be taxed.
We were very grateful that the Financial Secretary, on behalf of the Government, was able to say that disabled persons using mechanically propelled vehicles would not be called upon to pay the tax. That is a humane decision and one which we all accept gladly. In Committee there was a tendency to argue general principles as though, as we argued earlier this year, we were asking for the abolition of the tax as a whole. We could not have done that, but asked that the new tax of Is. should not be imposed on the goods and services which I have mentioned.
I have mentioned the cost to industry. I gather that the meeting of the Federation of British Industries went on for two hours yesterday without any final conclusion other than that this tax will impose a burden on industry. I hope that by now the Financial Secretary realises this problem, which has to be faced and which cannot be brushed aside as something which does not really matter. In many industries the process of production is vast and complex and there is an interlocking series of operations. That

will be possible only if this tax is taken off. It creates a heavier burden for industry and transport than the Financial Secretary suggested in Committee. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a better answer today as a result of having studied the contributions made by my hon. Friends.
There is much more which could be said upon this matter, but we want to give the right hon. Gentleman adequate time in which to reply. We shall carry our objections to a conclusion because we think that the proceedings have been far from satisfactory. We are of the opinion that the Bill has been badly conceived, and we say that it is further evidence of the inability of the Government to look after the welfare or the economy of the country. I shall have no alternative but to advise my hon. Friends and to go into the Lobby and vote against this disastrous Bill.

6.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), who spoke so generously about my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary and myself, has said how much he dislikes the Bill. He has said that the petrol duty is unpopular, thereby showing how closely he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that at the very beginning of our proceedings.
If the tax is unpopular, I must say that the Bill has not been faced with a tumultuous attack in the House. In the last two-and-a-half hours since my hon. and learned Friend ended his speech, the proceedings have been thinly attended. I say nothing against that, for I am well aware how hard it is within the rules of order to find anything new to say on the Third Reading of a short Bill, especially when we are taking all the stages of it within one week. Few of us can repeat ourselves without that being spotted by hon. Members opposite.
There were, however, one or two intriguing new arguments this afternoon. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made as one of his points against the Bill the fact that to put an additional tax on petrol in mid-December would be a savage deterrent against foreign tourists who want to drive their cars around England. If the foreign


tourist is deterred from driving his car across the wolds and moors on a February night, that might be more likely to ensure that he will come to the country at a more salubrious time of the year.
The hon. Member for Loughborough explained how strongly he disagreed with the views of the Economist about the effect of the tax on the cost of living. He said that the views of the Economist were jejune. I thought he went out of his way to underline the sentence in the Economist which had been quoted by my hon. and learned Friend. The Economist of 8th December said:
A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the effect of this increase on the cost of living.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) returned to the charge about the Scottish shale oil industry. I am not sure whether I heard him aright, although I listened carefully, but I understood that he implied, even if he did not actually say it, that we on the Government side were all villains towards Scotland. We may be villains, but the effect of our villainy is that at this time of year unemployment in Scotland is lower than it was in any year under the Socialist Government.

Mr. Pryde: The Minister must be conversant with the fact that the employment of people in the shale industry area is maintained only because they are tearing down the foundations of the shale industry. Where will they go when the foundations have been torn down?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. It is true that unemployment is lower than during the period of the Labour Government, but he will recognise that that is because of the Labour Government's distribution of industry policy, which sent factories there and made it possible.

Mr. Brooke: I thought I was getting a little out of order and I feel sure that if I followed the right hon. Gentleman and discussed the Distribution of Industry Act I should be called to order by the Chair.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) spoke of the unjustified profits which oil distributors made on the evening when the tax went up. He is familiar with these matters, and he knows that

there is a profit when indirect taxation rises and a loss when it falls. He fairly said that losses would be suffered when the guillotine which we have today inserted into the Bill ultimately falls or a Treasury Order is made. There will then be a tax loss on the stocks which have borne tax and which are in the hands of distributors.
Had we accepted the Opposition Amendment to make this tax end automatically on 5th April, I can see that it would not have been easy to buy petrol on indeed to sell petrol that afternoon, and I presume that the hon. Member for Sowerby, with all his Income Tax experience, felt that there might be some advantage gained thereby to our Income Tax calculations.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham sought from me a prophecy about the future course of our oil supplies. I have a feeling that both of them had kept for this afternoon a speech which might have been delivered in Monday evening's debate on the Motor Fuel Rationing Order. Certainly Treasury Ministers have to take much on themselves, but we guard against anticipation of future financial Budgets, and I will certainly be wary not to anticipate the oil budget.
An hon. Member made an allegation—which I thought a little ungrateful after the Amendment which we introduced on Report—that by including our Amendment the House might have induced the Government to retain rationing longer than they would otherwise have done. It was insinuated that there would be some revenue advantage in it which a grasping Government would seize. I must put this to the House: can hon. Members conceive it possible that the Department of Customs and Excise would ever find it advantageous to ration beer?
The hon. Baronet the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) and one or two other Members urged the Treasury not to hesitate to make an order terminating the extra duty without waiting for the full month. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall not feel bound to wait until the guillotine falls at the end of the month. I make no forecast whatever of what we shall do, but we shall not feel obliged to act in that way. In


fact, we should not hesitate to make an order earlier if that seemed desirable.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made some calculations, which I do not think I quite followed, about the net revenue out-turn of this extra tax. I gather that he suggested that we were budgeting for a net improvement of £4 million this year from the oil duty.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. When I was using that argument it applied only to road passenger vehicles. I said that the exemption of road passenger transport would involve £4 million and therefore all the inconvenience to road passenger transport was at a cost of £4 million.

Mr. Brooke: I gave the arguments in Committee yesterday why it would have been both impossible and unwise to exempt road passenger transport from this tax, sorry as I am for those who either run bus services or use buses and may thereby be affected by it.
I want to put on record once again that what we are doing is seeking to restore the estimated revenue from the oil duty to what it appeared likely to be before rationing. The oil shortage of this autumn and winter would have involved the Chancellor in a loss of about £30 million of revenue, and we calculate that the imposition of this tax will restore that £30 million.
Again for the record, I should like to say a word or two by way of comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, in which he referred to the Budget. I gained an impression that he was attacking this duty on the ground that the Chancellor was already so comfortably placed that he could well do without the £30 million of revenue which the restriction of the supplies of oil would cost him. Unless I mistook his words, the hon. Member for Enfield, East spoke of a substantial "overall Budget surplus." The truth is that the Budget surplus above the line, estimated last April at £460 million, will not be as large as that, although it will still be very large. But the overall Budget deficit will be smaller than was originally anticipated. That is a highly satisfactory fact. It will be smaller, because the deficit below the line will be considerably diminished as compared with the original estimate.

Mr. Davies: But does not that confirm what I stated? I quoted the Chancellor as having said that, taking the figures above and below the line together, the overall out-turn of the Budget will be better, not worse, than was forecast last April. My argument was that, as the overall out-turn would be better, not worse, the Exchequer could have afforded to meet this £30 million rather than impose this burden on the country.

Mr. Brooke: If I heard the hon. Gentleman's first speech aright, he did not say the "overall Budget out-turn" but the "overall Budget surplus", and in case there was any misunderstanding, I wanted to make sure that the record was correct.
None of the Treasury spokesmen has sought to conceal that this Bill is unpopular. In fact, all taxes are unpopular. Indeed, neither as a back bencher nor as a Treasury Minister have I yet detected one that has been lauded to the skies. Any action, if of a right character, taken in this economic situation was bound, in one sense or another, to be unpopular. The intention was, first, to replace the revenue lost from the oil shortage, and. second, to stimulate and force restraint within the ration so that we were, as my right hon. Friend said, safeguarding oil —"this precious liquid"—nat only by the ration but also by price.
In addition to that, what we were facing ten days ago, when the Chancellor announced the proposals, was a run on sterling. He disclosed the very heavy losses that our gold and dollar reserves had suffered over the past month, and what he put before the House was a balanced and comprehensive policy for dealing with the urgent situation that then challenged us. We needed to be seen by the whole world to be taking steps ourselves to put our house in order, acting aright and not just trusting that other people would lend us money. However generous our friends were prepared to be, it was up to us to show that we were prepared to do something ourselves.
The strength of sterling is a national asset. I know how much my right hon Friend the Chancellor appreciated the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) used, when following him, last Tuesday week. Throughout our debates, however controversial, there has been, I think, no


difference of opinion there at all. We are all at one that it is our common interest to sustain the value of the pound. The unpopular provision contained in the Bill is part of that strengthening of sterling, and I hope that even the hon. Member for Sowerby, who cast some doubts on whether it was necessary to do any more to that end, would not die in the last ditch for inaction, but would be as patriotically keen as any of us to see that sterling maintained its value.
Now, are we to turn away from all extra taxation because taxation is unpopular? I do not think that we could possibly run our country on those lines, nor would anybody ever accept the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were told at the outset that he must hold back from ever imposing extra taxation for fear of unpopularity. I should like to quote to the House what an hon. Member said on the last occasion but one when the petrol duty was raised. This is an extract from the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman)—whose speeches I would not normally be found quoting with high approval.
If I were about to attack the hon. Member, I should certainly have given him notice. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I hope that his hon. Friends will tell him how cordially I agree with him. On 14th June, 1950, speaking on the proposal to double the petrol duty, which the Labour Government of that day had announced, he said:
I confess at once that this tax is not popular. … Not only this duty is unpopular, but all taxes are unpopular. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in meeting the nation's needs year by year, were to wait until he could find a popular tax, we would have to do without a great many of the things we like to have and for which most of us are prepared to pay. The real test of the duty is not whether it is popular, but whether the object intended to be served by it is an object which the House and the nation would like to see achieved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950: Vol. 476, c. 270.]
In this case, we are so planning our affairs as not to exploit the nation by seeking to take from its pocket more oil revenue than it originally expected to pay. In the Bill, we are safeguarding against unlimited increases in bus and taxi charges. I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) said so

bravely and soundly, that there is no case whatever for every Tom, Dick and Harry, whether employer or worker, to come along now and say that this temporary increase in tax entitles him to demand unlimited higher prices or wages. No one could possibly sustain that argument.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) told us that one change that he had noticed from the imposition of this new duty was that immediately after it came into operation it was possible again to get petrol from garages. That seemed to me to prove precisely what the Chancellor had said—that it was desirable to safeguard petrol, not only by rationing but also by price. Of course, the price of petrol and oil has gone up substantially, but there is no justification for this talk of inflation and substantial rises in prices as a result of this duty.
As to inflation, again I found it extremely helpful to study those debates on the doubling of the petrol duty in 1950. Sir Stafford Cripps, to whom the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham referred in terms of high regard, said, quite significantly, in winding up the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill which imposed that extra petrol duty:
… some hon. Members … say to put a duty on petrol is inflationary. Well, it certainly is not inflationary unless it is going to lead to a very great increase in wages and and salaries. The increase in the price of an article which is sold to the public is deflationary, not inflationary, and, therefore the accusation that this is an inflationary duty is, of course, completely wrong from any economic point of view. The complaint that is made, however, is that this increase in the cost of articles will affect adversely the trading capacity of this country. The only way in which that argument has been given any substance is by the most flagrant exaggeration of the effects of this duty upon the finished price of am article".

Mr. Houghton: Now that the right hon. Member has the history book in his hand, will he tell us whether on that occasion Members of his party denied all that Sir Stafford Cripps said and went into the Division Lobby against him?

Mr. Brooke: The difference between then and now is that my hon. Friends and I have learned so much and hon. Gentlemen opposite have even forgotten what they once knew.
In a moment or two we shall divide. I know that the House has other important business to deal with this evening. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham has indicated that his party is going into the Lobby against this proposal. One of the grounds for opposition which we have heard constantly repeated during these debates is the cruel increase in prices which this new duty will impose. One person who will scarcely be able to go into the Lobby on that argument is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. What did he say in the debate from which I have just been quoting? The right hon.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Aitken, W. T.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hope, Lord John


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, R. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Armstrong, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Ashton, H.
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, John (Test)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Atkins, H. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duthie, W. S.
Hurd, A. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh. W.)


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchison, sir James (Scotstoun)


Barber, Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, F. J.
Iremonger, T. L.


Barter, John
Fell, A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke. C.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Foster, John
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Freeth, D. K.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gammans, Sir David
Kaberry, D.


Bishop, F. P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Keegan, D.


Black, C. W.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Body, R. F.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Kerr, H. W.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Glover, D.
Kershaw, J. A.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Godber, J. B.
Kimball, M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lagden, G. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cough, C. F. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Lambton, Viscount


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Leavey, J. A.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Green, A.
Leburn, W. G.


Bryan, P.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grimond, J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Campbell, Sir David
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Carr, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Longden, Gilbert


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McAdden, S. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macallum, Major Sir Duncan


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry


Crouch, R. F.
Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip &amp;—Northwood)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, then Minister of State for Economic Affairs, said—and these words are of profound importance:
It cannot be denied that the effects of the petrol Duty are spread very wide throughout our whole economy, so that the influence on any one individual is extremely small. Its influence on the final price of commodities is, indeed, negligible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 967 and 1057.]

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are about to throw over their Leader.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 2,84, Noes 246.

Maclean, Neil (Inverness)
Pitman, I. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Pott, H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, W.


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Temple, J. M.


Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ramsden, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmeyne, M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Marlowe, A, A. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Marples, A. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Marshall, Douglas
Renton, D, L. M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Mathew, R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maude, Angus
Rippon, A. G. F.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vane, W. M. F.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Roper, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Russell, R. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, G. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Neave, Airey
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Nicholls, Harmar
Sharples, R. C.
Wall, Major Patrick


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Shepherd, William
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'oh)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Nugent, C. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Webbe, Sir H.


Oakshott, H. D.
Soames, Capt. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spearman, sir Alexander
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Speir, R. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wood, Hon. R.


Page, R. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)



Partridge, E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Col. J. H. Harrison and


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Storey, S.
Mr. Hughes-Young.


NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Cove, W. G.
Hastings, S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hay man, F. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cronin, J. D.
Healey, Denis


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Anderson, Frank
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Herbison, Miss M.


Awbery, S. S.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hobson, C. R.


Balrd, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Houghton, Douglas


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Delargy, H. J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Dye, S.
Hunter, A. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bowles, F. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Boyd, T. C.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fienburgh, W.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Elwin (W. Ham, s.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Kenyon, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gooch, E. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lawson, G. M.


Carmichael, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Ledger, R. J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lewis, Arthur


Clunie, J.
Hale, Leslie
Lindgren, G. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hamilton, W. W.
Logan, D, G.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hannan, W.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson







MacColl, J. E.
Paton, John
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


McGhee, H. G.
Pearson, A.
Swingler, S. T.


McInnes, J.
Peart, T. F.
Sylvester, G. O.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pentland, N.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McLeavy, Frank
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mahon, Simon
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Malnwaring, w. H.
Probert, A. R.
Thornton, E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Pryde, D. J.
Tomney, F.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mason, Roy
Randall, H. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Mayhew, C. P.
Rankin, John
Viant, S. P.


Mellish, R. J.
Redhead, E. C.
Warbey, W. N.


Messer, Sir F.
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Mikardo, Ian
Reid, William
Weitzman, D.


Mitchison, G. R.
Rhodes, H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
West, D. G.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mort, D. L.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moss, R.
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.


Mulley, F. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, David (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oram, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Orbach, M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Osborne, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Owen, W. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Woof, R. E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, W. (Consett)
Zilliacus, K.


Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.



Parker, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parkin, B. T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Short.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES

7.13 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move
That the Draft Housing Subsidies Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This Order abolishes, with one exception, the general needs subsidy for houses and flats. The Order will apply to dwellings other than those in respect of which tenders were accepted by councils or submitted to the Minister before 2nd November. The exception is one-bedroom dwellings. For these, we are preserving the general needs subsidy of £10 for houses and higher rates for flats. We have decided to make this exception because, in the light of the inquiry which I made recently into the provision of houses for old people, we think it desirable to encourage local authorities to build more houses for elderly and single persons.
I wish to emphasise that this Order affects only the housing subsidy for general needs. It does not touch any of the other subsidies provided under the Housing Acts for various special purposes. For example, it does not affect the special subsidy of £22 for slum clearance, nor does it affect the subsidy of £24 for houses in new towns and over-spill schemes. Likewise, we are maintaining the special subsidy for dwellings built on expensive sites. The various subsidies payable for agricultural cottages also remain unaffected. Similarly, the Order does not touch the special subsidy for houses built on sites where there is mining subsidence, or the special subsidies for houses built with more expensive materials in order to preserve the character of the neighbourhood. In particular, I wish to emphasise that the tights of councils to claim an additional subsidy under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, are fully preserved.
At this stage, I should perhaps explain why, in respect of certain houses, the general needs subsidy, instead of being completely abolished, has been reduced to the nominal amount of Is. The reason is a technical and legal one. It is that certain of the special subsidies are payable only as additions to a basic subsidy.

If the basic subsidy were abolished altogether, these additional subsidies would cease to be payable. We have, therefore, provided for the payment of a nominal general needs subsidy of 1s. where this is necessary to keep these rights alive.
In accordance with Section 2 of the Housing Subsidies Act, I consulted the local authority associations. A year having passed since the introduction of the new subsidy structure, I thought it appropriate to review the whole position with the local authority associations. I went through with them each of the housing subsidies one by one, and sought their views as to whether any changes should be made. This Order was framed in the light of that consultation and, with the single exception of the reduction in the general needs subsidy, the Order conforms with the views expressed to me by the local authority associations.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I do not believe that.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member does not believe that?

Mr. Shurmer: Not with 65,000 applicants on the register in Birmingham.

Mr. Sandys: I said that with the single exception of the reduction in the general needs subsidy, the conclusions reached by the Government conform with the views expressed by the local authority associations.
This is, of course, not a new decision. The Government's intention to abolish the general needs subsidy completely at an early date was made absolutely clear to the House a year ago. When announcing the Housing Subsidies Bill on 27th October, 1955, I used these words:
… we have come to the conclusion that the subsidy on future houses built for general needs should be abolished altogether. In order not to make the transition too abrupt, we propose, for a year or so, to pay a much reduced annual subsidy of £10 per house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545. c. 377–8.]
In the light of the experience of this past year, we have come to the conclusion that this transitional subsidy of £10 a year can now be brought to an end without causing any undue embarrassment to local authorities.
Anxieties expressed during the passage of the Housing Subsidies Bill have, as I


expected, proved to be largely unfounded. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), during the course of the debates on the Housing Subsidies Bill said:
… the Bill means the end of local authority building in urban areas.
and
its effects in the rural areas will be catastrophic.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that general need building has never been lower since 1946 than it is at present?

Mr. Sandys: I am going to deal with the question of the rate of building. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough said that the Bill would mean the end of local authority building in urban areas. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to revise his speech of a year ago; I am reading what HANSARD records. He said that
… while the Bill means the end of local authority building in urban areas, its effects in the rural areas will be catastrophic."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 824.]
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said:
The Bill is the first step towards killing council housing."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 21st November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 1164.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sandys: Hon. Members say "Hear, hear." All I can say is that the facts up to date do not bear out these contentions.
Everyone who has any knowledge of housing statistics will, I think, agree that the earliest and most up-to-date indication of local authority housing plans and intentions is provided by the number of tenders approved. In the first ten months of this year tenders for 92,000 council houses have been approved.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Were they for general need?

Mr. Sandys: We were told that this was going to be the end of all council building.

Mr. Blackburn: Tenders for building what?—houses for slum clearance?

Mr. Sandys: I am coming to the question of slum clearance. I am explaining to the House the situation as regards the general volume of local authority council house building. I am saying that in the first ten months of this year tenders for 92,000 council houses have been approved. This compares with tenders for 95,000—a difference of only 3,000 —approved in the first ten months of 1955, that is to say before local authorities knew anything about the cut in the housing subsidies. Those figures are very significant.
There are many people who think that we are building too many houses; but, for the purpose of this debate and the arguments which will be advanced this evening, I think that the fact that the number of tenders approved in the first ten months of this year is almost the same as the number of tenders approved in the first ten months of last year, before the announcement of the cut in the housing subsidies, refutes any contention made by hon. Members opposite that the effect upon house building by local authorities has been catastrophic or has resulted in the end of council house building.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He quotes figures for ten months. Will he tell us what the figure was for the early part of his ten months and for the later part of those ten months, and for how many of these houses the work had been tacitly agreed by the local authorities before approval had been sought?

Mr. Herbert Butler: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies. I wonder whether he will allow me to put this question to him. Is it not a fact that, before we get to the tendering stage, the acquisition of the land has to be gone into? These matters are in hand, possibly, for two years before they get to the stage when tenders are let, so that the negotiations were entered into long before the Minister declared his intention about the subsidies.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that too.

Mr. Sandys: Hon. Members are basing their remarks upon crystal-gazing into the future.

Mr. Howell: One does not need a crystal to see through that example.

Mr. Sandys: One may take all sorts of other figures further back, but I have taken the most forward-looking figures about housing which are available, those relating to tenders. The reason I have taken a period of ten months is this. We are now in early December, and the latest figures available for this year are for the first ten months. I have taken the comparable figure for last year. Another reason for taking ten months is that, since the announcement was made in October last year, I thought it would be interesting to take figures for the ten months before that announcement was made, and, therefore, before local authority house building plans could be affected by the cut in the housing subsidy.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: If the right hon. Gentleman could give us the figures for this time next year, we should really be able to see something.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps we shall have a further debate on this subject next year, and I have no doubt the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will not miss the opportunity of expressing his views.
These figures which I have quoted show conclusively that the changes made in the subsidy rates a year ago have certainly not had the catastrophic effect predicted by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. There has, of course—and here I come to the point raised a few moments ago—been a major switch in house building away from building for general needs and towards the provision of houses for slum clearance. [An HON. MEMBER: "There you are."] I The hon. Member says, "There you are". But that is what we want; that was one of the main intentions of the House when it approved the new structure of housing subsidies a year ago, and approved the maintenance of the £22 subsidy for slum clearance and the reduction of the general need subsidy. The object was to give a special stimulus and priority to house building for slum clearance, because we felt that had become the urgent need.

Mr. Shurmer: rose—

Mr. Sandys: Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish? During recent years many of these people in the slums had

been by-passed, not through the fault of this or any previous Government, but because in the years immediately after the war a roof over anybody's head, however poor the roof, was regarded as better than no roof, and until an advance in house building generally had been made, it was not right to pull any house down. We felt that, after the large and rapid strides which had been made in house building, particularly in the last few years, the time had come when greater priority and emphasis might rightly be given to the clearance of the slums, and the replacement of those wretched dwellings by something more reasonable and decent for these people to live in.

Mr. Shurmer: rose—

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would answer this question?

Mr. Sandys: I gave way to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer).

Mr. Shurmer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Whilst I am sorry to keep boasting in this House, I must say that Birmingham has one of the greatest slum clearance schemes in the country. Nevertheless, Birmingham still has 65,000 people on its register for general needs. What is going to happen to those people? Who will build houses for them? As regards the 92,000 houses tendered for, to which the Minister has referred, evidently many of those in Birmingham will be for slum clearance. What is to happen to the ordinary applicant on the list

Mr. Mitchison: Might I ask one question? Is the Minister satisfied with the progress up to date of what he calls his slum clearance campaign?

Mr. Sandys: I think that things are going pretty well. The slum clearance drive is steadily gathering momentum. In 1955 local authorities submitted to me slum clearance schemes covering rather more than 20,000 houses. The schemes submitted this year will cover more than double that number.

Mr. C. Howell: Is that out of the Minister's 92,000? That leaves about 52,000.

Mr. Sandys: if the hon. Member wishes to interrupt, perhaps he would stand up; but I am not going to give


way to him anyway. I do not think that we want a debate on slum clearance, but I consider that the Government and all the local authorities concerned can be exceedingly well pleased with the progress which is being made. The Government set themselves a target of rehousing people from the slums at the rate of 200,000 a year. Judging from the way things are going, I do not think it will be very long before we reach that target.
I am quite sure that the abolition of the remaining £10 subsidy for general needs is not going to deter local authorities from building houses which are needed in their areas. As I have pointed out already, the rights of local authorities to claim an additional subsidy under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act have been fully preserved. Under that Section the Minister is empowered to pay a subsidy of up to £30 for a house and up to £40 for a flat where he is satisfied—these are broadly the conditions—first, that there is an urgent need in the district for more council houses and, second, that the council could not provide these houses without levying unreasonably heavy rates or charging unreasonably high rents.

Mr. Sparks: What is the basis?

Mr. Sandys: The basis of that is Section 5 of the 1956 Act.
As I said during the passage of the Housing Subsidies Bill—and I draw attention to these words—this Section ensures that
no local authority shall be prevented through financial difficulty from providing the houses which are urgently needed for its people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February. 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1102.]
I believe that to be an absolutely fair statement of the safeguard which is provided, and was intended to be provided, by Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act. I personally feel that very few local authorities will find it necessary to claim this additional subsidy but where they do, I can assure the House that their needs will be most carefully considered.
In the light of these explanations and assurances, I trust that the House will be willing to approve this draft Order.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I deal first with one or two points put by the right hon. Gentleman? The Minister gave us the figures of tenders, and my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that those are not the material figures because tenders represent quite an advanced stage, not perhaps in the formal plans of the local authorities, but in their actual plans. The right hon. Gentleman has been asking local authorities about their projects. He informed the House on 4th and 11th December that he had not yet received sufficient answers to replies to a Question on that matter. One of my complaints about the right hon. Gentleman is that he insists on eliminating, for all practical purposes, the general need subsidy at a time when he is still ignorant, or at any rate cannot answer a Question, about the projects of local authorities. I repeat that complaint which I made to him on the last occasion when he expressed his inability to answer a Question on the matter.
Let us get clear what is the attitude of local authorities on this matter. They all object strongly to what is the substance of this Order, the virtual abolition—I agree not quite complete—of the general need subsidy. Let us have no bones about it. I have had a letter from one of them, the Urban District Councils Association, who put their objections to it on two scores.
Now we are not to have a debate about the progress of slum clearance, and I shall not express to the right hon. Gentleman the criticism I have often made before about his so-called campaign—that in fact the only result of it is that the local authorities are doing rather less slum clearance than they proposed anyhow to do.
Whether that is right or wrong, the point is that the right hon. Gentleman himself is satisfied with the progress of his slum clearance campaign, and since one of the main reasons he gave for the reduction of the general need subsidy was to ensure the progress of the slum clearance campaign, and he has already got it to his own satisfaction, why does he need a further reduction? This point was put with some considerable force by the Urban District Councils Association in a letter which that association sent


to me and to other hon. Members. That is why I asked the Minister if he was satisfied. The right hon. Gentlemen knew as well as I did that I would not accept his satisfaction in lieu of performance, but that is an entirely different matter.
I shall not repeat the general objections that were made to the removal of the general need subsidy when this proposal was first announced and first debated. What astonished me about what the right hon. Gentleman had to say was that, in the light of the experience of the last year, he proposed to continue with the proposal he made on 27th October, 1955. I suggest to him that a good deal has happened in the last year.
Before I come to that, let me take one or two small points. One-bedroom houses are now going to preserve the subsidy. I am extremely glad to hear it, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, who is charging some of us with inconsistency, I thought without much ground, of what he himself said in relation to the one-bedroom house on 25th January, 1956. He was opposing an Amendment which would have enabled the continuation of the general need subsidy in the case of homes specially built for old people. As he observed quite rightly, that is exactly what these are. This is what he said:
Were the Amendment adopted, it would undoubtedly tend to encourage local authorities to increase the proportion of houses built for old people at the expense of houses built for persons with families. Such further emphasis in the direction of one-bedroom houses would not he desirable, and, therefore, while I have just as much sympathy with the needs of the elderly people as have other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I do not think that it would be right to accept this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th January, 1956; 548, cc. 284 and 285.]
What is the conclusion I draw from that? I welcome the repentance of the right hon. Gentleman. We were perfectly right at the time in urging this, and now at last the right hon. Gentleman, who on that occasion spoke with insufficient information, has made further inquiries and has realised how right we were. I suggest that if he made some further inquiries about the projects of housing authorities, we should again get a repentance based on fuller knowledge.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman should remind the House that the Amendment which I was opposing on

that occasion was one of a series that collectively covered every aspect of housing.

Mr. C. W. Key: The right hon. Gentleman picked out that one.

Mr. Sandys: Therefore, I think it should be looked at in the manner in which the Opposition dealt with that series of Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: I am always willing to look at the right hon. Gentleman's statements, or misstatements, in the context in which they are made, but that is what he said, and he bore it out by opposing the Clause and we divided on it, and the right hon. Gentleman walked into the Lobby. There is always a "context" about walking into the Lobby, but I did not expect him to do anything else. He should not be so ungrateful when I am welcoming his repentance on one point and urging that he should extend it a little on another. That is all. It is a friendly attitude, and he need not complain about it.
There were other points we took as objections, and I will remind the right hon. Gentleman of what they were. They were cases of overcrowding, they were cases of tuberculosis, and they were cases, amongst others, of special agricultural subsidies. Our objection to the whole of the treatment of subsidies is this. No doubt it distinguishes between house and house, but it does not distinguish between the way in which one house and another is occupied. It is highly illogical to maintain the housing subsidies simply on the condition of houses and to refuse to maintain them in cases of overcrowding and serious illness of an infectious character, such as tuberculosis is.
It is not only illogical, but, if I may with courtesy say it to the right hon. Gentleman, it illustrates a singularly inhuman point of view. He can see the houses but apparently he cannot realise the nature of the occupation and the character of the human needs of the people living inside them. I congratulate him on having got just far enough to see the special need of the aged, but I wish he had gone a little further and been able to see the special need of the overcrowded, the tuberculosis cases and the rest.
I now turn to what has happened during this year. Let us look first at the


financial side. The reduction of £10 in housing subsidies means a reduction on each house equivalent to roughly 4s. a week. We all know the argument about spreading the bitter potion or whatever one calls it. We all know the famous argument about averages. I will not trespass on the limits in respect of Parliamentary language to tell the right hon. Gentleman what I think of that kind of argument. However, the £10 loss in housing subsidy means 4s. a week in respect of the house to be found somewhere, either out of the rent or out of the rates.
Meanwhile, since last year there has been another factor. The Public Works Loan Board rate for council long-term borrowing last year was 5 per cent., and the open market rate was much the same. Glasgow and Liverpool were the first two county boroughs to borrow after the statement at the end of October. 1955. They both borrowed at 4¾ per cent. Allowing for a small discount, underwriting and the rest, it comes very near the Public Works Loan Board rate, as it should do. The present position is that the Public Works Loan Board rate is 54 per cent., and there has been a corresponding rise in the borrowing rates for local authorities varying from the London County Council to Bootle.
What difference does that make? In the case of a £1,600 house, simple arithmetic, without any averages or any spreading, will show the right hon. Gentleman that a rise of ¾per cent. means a rise of £12 a year. The net result is that local authorities at present, from the point of view of building houses, are having to pay £12 a year more and they are also having £10 a year taken from them. If the right hon. Gentleman had left them with the £10 general needs subsidy, they would still, as a result of the financial policy of the Government, merely be a couple of pounds a year worse off than they were previously. If the right hon. Gentleman takes it away, he is merely piling on the agony.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to reflect upon that matter, upon the fact that the maintenance of the subsidy would not have compensated local authorities for that one single factor, the rise in the cost of borrowing in relation to what I think is a fair average for a house. We

welcome the right hon. Gentleman's repentance, but it was a repentance because his inquiry about old folk led him to a different conclusion and be recognised the facts. That is well and good.
When he made his statement on 27th October, 1955, did he or did he not expect that there was going to be a continuing rise in the rate of interest for local authorities? Did he or did he not expect that when he came to take a further £10 away, as he then proposed to do, it would he on top of a rise amounting to about £12 a year on the borrowing cost? 1 think the right hon. Gentleman's answer will be, "Well, I did not know." I do not see how he could have known. He certainly did not say anything about it. Surely he should recognise that there at any rate something rather unexpected has happened.
What about the Government's adventures in Suez and their consequences? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that house building in this country, the activities of local authorities and the rest, are not going to suffer from the economic consequences from that unfortunate venture? We are not discussing them at length now. I need not rub in the fact that we have just been talking about petrol rationing. I need not remind the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of all the nasty things, mostly untrue, that his party said about rationing, controls and the rest at the last General Election. Here we are faced with an emergency brought about by the Government's own actions, and the consequence is that all that has become applicable the wrong way round.
It is very unfortunate for the right hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate the serious difficulty into which a matter of this kind puts him, but ought he not to take it into account when he is considering what the local authorities have got to do? They have got to pay more for petrol, they will face wage claims as a result of this sort of thing, and they may have to deal with local trouble, perhaps unemployment in their areas. Is this the right moment to carry out the threat which, in ignorance of all this, the right hon. Gentleman made a year or more ago?
Let me take a third thing which has changed during the year? Twelve months


ago the right hon. Gentleman was carrying out a review of rent control legislation. I am certain that in such a large field as that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat the mistake he made about the old folk and the one-bedroomed houses. I am sure that he would not at that time have come to a hasty conclusion about dealing with rent control. He was only reviewing the matter. It was not until he faced the embattled Tories at Llandudno this October that he came out with the horrible truth that he was going to abolish rent control altogether. Later he brought into the House the Bill which was the first step in that direction.
I am not going to debate that Bill. I am merely going to say one or two perfectly obvious things about it, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself would be prepared to acknowledge. It really is going to cause a comprehensive upset in all privately-owned houses. The rents of the smallest of them will be roughly doubled. The rather larger ones, above £40 in London, will be decontrolled. The right hon. Gentleman knows just as well as I do that a stream of letters is coming in from people who have voted Conservative all their lives, or say that they have done so, but now cannot vote for the Government any longer on that account.
Why is this? It is because these people are going to lose the security of the houses which they have previously had, and they run the risk of being turned out by landlords who hope to make a profit out of using the houses in some other way. I am not for the moment discussing the merits of the matter. Those are the obvious consequences of the Bill. Let us be realists; the Government have a majority, and they are going to get that kind of effect out of the Bill.
What will happen then? The people who have been turned out of the small houses because they cannot any longer pay the rent, and the people who have been turned out of the larger houses because they are decontrolled and the landlords hope to make a little more money out of them, will wonder where to go. The housing lists of local authorities, already large enough in most parts of the country, will be supplemented by people asking for council houses and sorely needing them because they have been turned out of their present accommodation as

a result of the Government's rent legislation and have nowhere else to go.
That is a new development, if ever there was one, and to choose this moment to reduce the housing subsidy, and, therefore, further to limit—I will not go beyond that—the building operations of local authorities, is surely a lack of foresight which, I am inclined to say, is inconsistent with anything that 1 had ever expected from the right hon. Gentleman. He does not look the sort of man who would be deliberately cruel, nor do hon. Members opposite look as though they would be deliberately cruel; but they do perpetrate with the most alarming consistency a particularly kind of folly which always seems to have the result that one class of people, in this case the private landlords, do a great deal better and another much larger class of people, the ordinary people, the people who get a weekly pay packet and live in a small house and the rest of it, become worse off. That is a very curious resemblance of the varying follies of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite. This is a case in point.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the hon. and learned Member also say that the Socialist Government were being cruel when they built only two houses where the present Government are building three?

Mr. Mitchison: We are not talking about house building at the moment; but I will answer that. The Government do not build houses. They are built by builders either for local authorities or for private owners. What is happening at the moment is that local authorities are building fewer and fewer and private owners building rather more. The hon. Member will find that that is happening if he looks at the figures. This is like all those other pieces of folly.
The people who can afford to get a house built for them are, curiously enough, doing quite well. It is those who cannot afford to get a house built for them who have to go to councils for their houses and who fill the housing lists of local authorities all over the place and who come to hon. Members' "surgeries" in sheer desperation, knowing that it is not our business but that of the local authority. They are the people who suffer from all this.
When this proposed change was announced on 27th October, 1955, it was greeted with a few comments and criticisms. Indeed, I made some myself. They were very strongly worded. They shocked the right hon. Gentleman who did not know what I was talking about. I hope that since then he has learned a little more. The right hon. Gentleman said:
It has always been clear that it was the intention of Parliament that the subsidy"—
That is, the housing subsidy—
should not go to persons for whom it was not needed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and that the relief should be given only to those who need it and only for so long as they do need it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 380.]
That was the Tory philosophical reason for the right hon. Gentleman's action and proposal in connection with housing subsidies.
Another thing has happened, this time quite recently. The farmers have been getting very discontented. There have been real doubts about their loyalty to the Conservative Party.

Mr. F. Harris: Not now.

Mr. Mitchison: I am so glad that the hon. Member helped me; exactly, not now. It was in order to pacify them that the Minister of Agriculture made a statement about subsidies the other day. One has to realise what this is about. These are subsidies for assisting the provision of permanent fixed equipment on farms. I will take a specific instance which will at once appeal to hon. Members, the building of pigsties.
Let us see what will happen with the subsidy for building pigsties. The Minister of Agriculture said:
…as part of these comprehensive arrangements, the Government will introduce a major new scheme of grants for assisting the provision of permanent fixed equipment on farms and the making of long-term improvements to land. The details are being worked out…The grants will be at the rate of 33⅓ per cent.,"—
we do not get that on a house—
and the additional cost to the Exchequer may amount to about £50 million over a 10-year period.
That is £5 million a year. I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman expected local authorities to build 80,000

houses a year to meet general needs, and £10 on 80,000 houses is still less than £1 million a year. This farming subsidy is for £5 million a year. The Minister of Agriculture went on:
The Government hope that this new provision…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November. 1956; Vol. 561, c. 229.]
Various questions were asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) asked the Minister of Agriculture:
Having regard to the constant criticism of members of the Government about granting subsidies to consumers who do not need them,"—
I suppose that includes people who live in houses—
will the Minister, when granting subsidies to farmers, differentiate between those who need them and those who do not?
Here is the answer in relation to pigsties:
The important objective which we must keep before us is to ensure that the payment of these subsidies results in increased efficiency in the industry, in the interests of the whole nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 232–3.]
I do not know whether "blah" is a Parliamentary term, and I should hesitate to use it. All I need say for the moment is that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question and did not have the faintest intention of dealing with subsidies for building pigsties according to the means of the person who received them.
What a startling contrast. The Government provide subsidies to the Duke of Omnium to build new pigsties while at the same time they confine housing subsidies merely to those who need them and choose this moment to eliminate the general needs subsidy. I have never heard of more flagrant vote-catching of a more obvious and somewhat disreputable character in my life than the difference between the two cases.

Mr. Sandys: Votes for pigs?

Mr. Mitchison: The Duke of Omnium, the land owner, the farmer and the rest of it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): He would sit in another place.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member points out that he would sit in another


place. The Duke of Omnium is a fictitious character who spends a lot of time in this House as Planty Pal. If the hon. Member will consult his Trollope, he will find that that is so. During that period he certainly voted.
I sum up; at the moment there are still our objections to reducing the housing subsidy, and I have taken care not to repeat them at length. Secondly, there have been very substantial changes during the year—changes which the right hon. Gentleman could not have anticipated and which have made things far harder for local authorities from whom these subsidies are to be taken away.
To put them shortly, those changes consist, first, of a sharp and considerable rise in the rate of interest for borrowing, which is actually bigger than the sum with which we are dealing here; secondly. the economic crisis resulting from the Government's action in Suez; thirdly, the fact that the Rent Bill has been introduced and it has become clear since the Gracious Speech of 6th November—and not previously—that it is going to produce throughout the country, and particularly in the large towns, a complete dislocation of the housing position and undoubtedly a large increase in the number of people who will, on general grounds, need council houses, and, lastly, the very remarkable statement of the Minister of Agriculture, which appears to indicate that the philosophy of the right hon. Gentleman in confining subsidies to those who need them does not apply to landowners in connection with pigs and pigsties.
Before I sit down, I want to take up one small and quite separate point, simply because I have been asked to—and I hope that the Minister will take note of it. It is a small objection to the removal of the general needs subsidy, and it arises out of his slum clearance campaign. In some parts of the North of England, if a house is marked for demolition and demolished and the occupant moves out into the only accommodation available at the moment, which happens, in a mining district, to belong to the National Coal Board—and if he goes there only temporarily because the local authority cannot deal with him—it seems very unfair that when the local authority deals with him finally it is deprived of the slum clearance subsidy

because there has been a short interval during which he occupied a National Coal Board house.
That is quite a minor point, but I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention—not necessarily for answer today but at some time or other in the future. I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends will find no difficulty whatever in opposing the Order.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to support the Order which is before the House and to endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about it. In the present economic condition of the country I believe that it is wrong to continue to subsidise houses for general needs. I had not expected to speak in this debate. I came in in order to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say, and I thought that so many of my hon. Friends would want to speak that I should not be required to do so. That being so, I have not fortified myself in any way with the kind of statistics which I should have liked to amass if I had known beforehand that I was going to speak.
I had always understood, when the general needs subsidy for houses was reduced from £22 1s. 0d. to £10 a year for 60 years, that if the amount of that reduction had been spread over all the local authority houses it would have required about 2d. a week in rent, on the average, to recoup that amount to the local authorities. I do not know what the equivalent figure would be now that the £10 subsidy for general needs is being withdrawn, but I imagine that it would not be very high if it were spread over all the local authority houses in the country.
But the fact that many local authorities—although not all, by any means—still have waiting lists of people who want to go into houses built for general needs, and that those houses will cost local authorities more, both because of the withdrawal of the subsidy and because of the increased cost of borrowing, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), means that they are probably going to be forced by the very economic circumstances in which we find ourselves to go in more and more for differential rent schemes.
I believe that that is a good thing, and I am not at all averse to any kind of pressure which will lead local authorities generally to adopt schemes of rent rebates—to pool houses, both pre-war and post-war; to decide a fair standard rent for different types of houses, and charge that rent unless tenants, giving particulars of their individual incomes, can make out a case for securing those houses at less than the fair economic rent.

Mr. H. Butler: Would the hon. Member apply that argument to the pigsties to which my hon. and learned Friend referred?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If the hon. Member will wait for what I am going to say he will hear about pigsties very shortly. I shall not forget them.
I was referring to rent rebate schemes. From the inquiries which I have made and from the experience which I have had it seems to me that those schemes are working well wherever they have been tried.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham) indicated dissent.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) shakes his head. They may not work well in the London County Council area, but in many other areas where the controlling authorities do not represent the party for which I speak, but very often the party for which the hon. Member would speak if he were going to speak this evening—as I suspect he is—they work very well.
I appreciate that this is not a debate upon those schemes, and I am merely saying that I do not complain if the effect of what we are doing tonight is to force more and more local authorities in England and Wales to take up such schemes. I say "in England and Wales" because the Order does not apply to Scotland, and it might be wondered why I, representing a Scottish constituency, should have the temerity to speak in a debate dealing with the position in England and Wales. I do so because I have been careful to see that none of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and also to point out that what England does in this respect is very often followed by Scotland. I am very conscious of the fact that the

Gracious Speech indicated that legislation is to be brought before the House shortly to deal with the position about housing subsidies in Scotland. I have no doubt that when that legislation is being framed due regard will be paid to the kind of considerations which my right hon. Friend has placed before the House tonight.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the presence of the hon. Gentleman mean, there being no hon. Member representing an English constituency to support the Government in this matter, that they have had to rely for support on a hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, and whose constituency will not be affected?

Mr. F. Harris: No. May I intervene to say that I fully support the Government?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have little doubt that I shall not be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but that others will speak. It so happens that I have been fortunate enough to achieve the honour of speaking upon this, an English occasion.

Mr. Harris: As hon. Members opposite have had a three-line Whip on this matter does not my hon. Friend think it surprising that there are so few of them present in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twice as many as on the hon. Member's side."]—to take an interest in this very important issue.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not propose to go into that kind of arithmetic, which would seem to be somewhat inaccurate, but it may serve as an approximation.
One thing of which the House has to take note is that the withdrawal of the subsidy for general needs will inevitably increase the financial inducement to local authorities to build houses for slum clearance, because the Order is designed largely for that purpose. My right hon. Friend has said that that is one of the intentions. Of course it is. Because the Government which I support has been so successful in building houses throughout the length and breadth of the land, they are now able to go on with a great drive to clear the slums.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked my right


hon. Friend whether he was satisfied with the progress of the slum clearance scheme. The House must have been glad to hear my right hon. Friend reply that the figures indicated that the drive, which started so well, is gathering momentum with every month that passes. Of course, there has been only one other slum clearance drive in the history of this country. It so happens that last night I was reading a book writen by a former colleague of many of us in this House, entitled, "Let Candles be Brought In". It was written by one who was the Parliamentary Secretary to Sir Edward Hilton Young at the time when the great drive in the early and middle 1930s to clear the slums of England and Wales was planned and started.
I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend and his Parliamentary Secretary, who are so thorough about these matters and think so hard about and examine every aspect of them, have studied the history of that great drive. I am sure that there are many hon. Members in this House who had some responsibility during the war for some aspects of the planning of military operations. They will know that when a military operation has been planned, the planners afterwards sit down and write the history of it so that if that kind of operation has to take place again, there is a complete record of everything that was done.
The same is true of many ceremonial occasions. I dare say that it is within the knowledge of hon. Members of this House that after every Coronation, and other big ceremonies, someone who has had to play a part in the planning of the details—not only the procession, but the reception of foreign potentates, the hospitality and the timing, which is such an important pant of those events—collects together all the information, upon which a book is written so that on future occasions pitfalls may be avoided and the precedents established may be followed.
I believe that my right hon. Friend has looked to see what was done during the great slum clearance drive of the middle 1930s. I believe that, because in so many ways we are now following the example of those days. It started with a local authority survey, as was laid down in the Housing Repairs and Rents Acts both for England and Wales and for Scotland. It was buttressed by the subsidy for replacement houses, which we have now. Even the target was much the same over the

first five years of the drive not, of course, exactly the same, but very much the same.
There are but two factors which are different. The first is that in those days, the cost of building, by and large, was falling. Although we hope that is happening now, it is not happening very quickly. But in the early 1930s it was falling, so that then houses built without subsidy could be let at rents which were broadly comparable with those of subsidised houses built a few years before.

Mr. Sparks: That is not true.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) dissents. If he has anything to say, I will gladly give way. These are facts which I am carrying in my head.

Mr. Sparks: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was telling us that houses could be built today by local authorities without subsidy at the same cost as with the subsidy.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I said no such thing. I was comparing the drive for clearing the slums during the inter-war years with the present drive. I said that there were two differences. I said that in the early 1930s the cost of house building was falling, so that in the early 1930s houses could be built to let, without subsidies, at rents comparable with houses built a few years earlier with a subsidy.
There was another difference which struck me forcibly when I was reading the book to which I have referred. In those days it was possible to build a three-bedroom house for £320. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be only too delighted if he could do that at the present time.

Mr. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we can get back to that desirable epoch in the history of housing costs? Can he tell us how we can bring down costs to that level today?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Acton knows as well as I that in a long period when we have had a continuous and steady rise in costs, we cannot expect to get back to anything like the price of £320 for a three-bedroom house. What we can do is to try to steady the inflationary rise in costs, and that the Government which I support are doing in every way possible.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) asked me to refer to pigsties, and I wish now to turn to the matter of agricultural policy which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. He knows as well as I do that the 33⅓ per cent. grant recently announced by the Government is to maintain the fixed equipment of our farms; not only to maintain that equipment, but to modernise the farms and bring some of the old-fashioned farms into a modern and efficient state as producing units. It would not be irrelevant, since he has raised the matter, to ask whether he does not think that is a good thing to do. If he does not, he will find himself at variance with many of his colleagues. If he does, I hope that he will say so. I shall quote what he said in my agricultural constituency, and it will be quoted in many agricultural constituencies.

Mr. Mitchison: That is a very kind invitation. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech about housing and housing subsidies. Why is it right to bring agricultural equipment and buildings up to date and to leave houses out of date? Why does one merit the subsidy irrespective of need and the other does not?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I accept that challenge because it is relevant and germaine to this question. The great task which faced this Government in 1951 was to make up the acute shortage of houses with which we were faced when we came into power. In spite of the derision from hon. Members opposite, whose Government had failed in their boast to build 200,000 houses a year, we achieved our target of building 300,000 houses per year. We have now built more than l½ million houses. Now we can switch to the clearance of the slums. It is right to concentrate housing subsidies where the need is greatest.
Undoubtedly, the need is to encourage local authorities by every means in our power, particularly by the financial incentive, to undertake with energy and with realism the building of houses to replace the houses of those who live in conditions of which none of us can be proud and of which every hon. Member has seen examples. They are quite horrible and undignified. We must do all

we can to rehouse those people in decent conditions. The Government are right to do it by a financial incentive to local authorities to rehouse the people from the slums.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thorn ton-Kemsley) because I could not quite connect some of his remarks with the Motion before the House. In any case, I am much more interested in human beings than in pigs.
This Order is already having an effect on housing output, and therefore we ought to make it clear to the country that the optimistic remarks of the Minister were not warranted. I noticed that he referred to tenders which had been approved this year, but of course they will not get built this year, and some of them will not be built next year. What matters is the number of houses under construction. Figures show that that number is going down. I will quote figures in order to satisfy the House that we should reject the Motion on the ground that the Order will drive the figure still lower.
In the last Ministry of Housing and Local Government returns, up to the end of September, figures are given of house building for a number of years. I will quote one or two of them for local authorities who are practically the only people who have provided and will provide houses to let for the ordinary wage earner. In 1953, local authorities produced 202,891 houses; in 1954 that number had dropped to 199,642, and in 1955 it had dropped still further to 162,525. It is going down this year, because for the first nine months the houses built by local authorities were just over 101,000.
It would be absurd for the Minister to suggest that cutting the subsidy, in addition to imposing penal interest rates, has not had something to do with the already tremendous cut in the number of houses produced by local authorities.

Mr. Sparks: It is 50 per cent.

Mr. Gibson: The position will get worse. Is the Minister aware that one local authority in London is finding so difficult the building of houses to let at


rents which anybody in the borough can pay—it is not the London County Council—that it is considering the building of houses next year out of the rates, thus avoiding the payment of interest rates on capital altogether? It hopes to be able to spread over the enormous interest cost which it has already incurred.
That means that that local authority will be reduced to building 100 houses instead of 700, 800 or 1,000. That is all it is planning for. Other local authorities have stopped building. Many Tory housing authorities stopped building months ago. When an enthusiastic local authority with an enormous housing problem on its hands in a place like London is compelled to build out of rates because of financial stringency, the Minister is completely at fault if he thinks he can cut the subsidy without influencing the output of houses.
The total number of houses built is dropping, in spite of the increase in the number built by private enterprise. The total number of houses built in 1953 was 308,000. That is the marvellous 300,000 building programme which the Tory conference instructed the then Minister of Housing to build and about which he made flowery speeches. He only did it once. In 1954 the figure was 283,326, and in the first nine months of 1956 it is down to 196,002.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member will appreciate that he is quoting figures for England and Wales, whereas the 300,000 houses target was always a Great Britain target.

Mr. Gibson: Whether it is for England or Wales or not does not matter from the point of view of my argument. What I am trying to show is that the number of houses which are being built is going down.

Mr. Sandys: One has to add about 30,000.

Mr. Gibson: All right; 30,000 houses in Scotland will not help London very much. The Parliamentary Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Rent Bill, admitted that places like London ought to be given special consideration as special conditions prevail there. It is in London and other large towns where the

boot is beginning to pinch severely in general housing. The figures show that there is a continual fall in the number of houses completed, and also a continual fall in the number under construction. That is inevitable.
Anyone who knows anything about the building trade would expect nothing else. One cannot turn building off and on like water in a tap. It begins to peter out gradually. As one stops issuing orders houses under construction gradually become completed. Those of us connected with the building industry had this experience after the First World War. Unfortunately, it is now petering out rather rapidly and nothing the Government have done is stopping that. Completely to abolish the subsidy will make things even worse.
I should not have thought of raising this question if the Minister had not tried to give the impression that everything in the garden was lovely, that we were getting lots of tenders and going to have a vast mass of houses in the next twelve months. We shall get nothing of the sort, but we shall have a steadily reducing number of houses, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of families on urgent waiting lists—many for health reasons—will never get a house. Even the L.C.C. with its enormous resources has had to tell its 160,000 people on the waiting list that only a few can he rehoused in the next three years.

Mr. F. Harris: Would not the hon. Member agree that in London, Greater London, and near London much of the house building is going down because the towns themselves—as in the case of Croydon—are already so much developed that building must automatically go down as the years go on?

Mr. Gibson: The Minister was trying to give the impression that that was not happening, that tenders were piling in and we would not have a reduction in building.

Mr. Sandys: We are going to build about 300,000 this year again.

Mr. Gibson: We are not going to have 300,000 built under slum clearance nor any other way. From what evidence one has so far the total number of houses built, even with slum clearance, will not


come anywhere near 300,000. Incidentally—in reply to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns—even between the wars the slum clearance campaigns were inspired and pushed through by the Wheatley Act, which set the programme going so vigorously. We were able in the 'thirties to pull down a large number of slums and build a large number of houses, but the Tories have no right to claim credit for that.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member should not say that the Wheatley Act inspired and pushed through the slum clearance campaign. That is absolute rubbish, and the hon. Member knows it. The Wheatley Act was the means by which certain subsidies were given, but the drive was inspired and pushed through by the National Government and the Wheatley Act had nothing to do with that.

Mr. Gibson: I am not sure under which Act we were operating, but the Greenwood Act and the Wheatley Act set the thing going and kept it going for a number of years. Even then we did not solve the slum clearance problem, and we still have a tremendous problem.
The situation in large towns is getting so difficult financially that housing authorities, with every will in the world to build, are finding it so hard to meet the cost that some have stopped building. Others—I can give the name of the borough if the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns wants it—are considering building at the cost of the local rates. I suggest that with that situation, instead of abolishing the subsidy, the Minister should have come to the House with an Order to reinstate the full subsidy and to give those local authorities a little more encouragement.
As I understand the objection to subsidies—apart from the nonsense that so many people talk about some having to pay for others' houses—it is that the country cannot afford it. I have seen that many times in the Beaverbrook Press; they are flogging it almost every day of the week. Today I looked up the Report on National Income and Expenditure. In 1955 the national product, as the Report calls it, totalled over £16,780 million. Out of that we spent on housing subsidies

£79 million. Can anybody suggest that a country which can produce that amount of wealth in one year is in difficulties in finding £79 million for housing subsidies to meet a need, which everybody agrees exists, not only for slum clearance but in the chronic housing cases, such as overcrowding, with which we are not dealing tonight?

Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Member the figure for what was spent on house building in the year? That is the relevant figure for comparison.

Mr. Gibson: The relevant figure for tonight's discussion is the figure for subsidies. It is the subsidy that we are abolishing. Last year we spent £79 million on housing subsidies, £21 million of which was paid by local authorities and did not come out of State funds at all. It is particularly mean that a country which can raise in one year a total wealth of £16,000 million wants to cut a subsidy which in proportion is miserable. That is what the Order does. It is particularly mean when the result is that local authorities who build the houses which are so bady needed are gradually coming down the scale in their production of houses because they cannot meet the financial burden imposed by the abolition of subsidies and the enormous increase in rates. I hope the House will reject the Order, if only on that ground.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member has quoted from the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure. There is a very relevant figure which he has not quoted. He attaches blame to the Government for abolishing the subsidy, but there is a way in which the difficulty could be overcome—a slight raising of rents. Does he understand from his reading of the Blue Book that the amount spent on rent, water charges and rates out of personal incomes is about £850 million a year, although we are spending more than that on alcoholic drinks, sweets and tobacco?

Mr. Gibson: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Member, because his intervention had nothing to do with the Order before the House. It is true that we spend more on drink than on rent, and I am one of the few hon. Members who protest about it every time I have the opportunity. But that is not the


point. We are engaged tonight in considering an Order which will abolish subsidies on general housing. It is to that that we are strongly objecting.
The Parliamentary Secretary has more than once claimed that in 12 months we shall reach a state of balance between supply and demand in houses in this country. What absolute nonsense. Nobody w ho has any practical experience of administering a housing department could possibly say that. The fact is that nobody outside the House who is connected with the industry believes it.
I want to quote from the editorial of the Municipal Journal of 23rd November:
The Government clearly believe that by the end of next year houses of this kind will be so abundant that conditions favourable to the creation of a free market will result. We are not so confident. We believe there will be a substantial shortage of these houses.
Everybody with any knowledge knows there is bound to be a substantial shortage which will be made worse by Orders abolishing housing subsidies. I ask the House to reject the Order in the interest of giving some encouragement to our local housing authorities to go on building.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I am sure that we are happy to be present on this occasion to hear the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) making his contribution to this debate. Having no constituency interest, and running no risk of losing votes, he has very obligingly allowed himself to be put up as a stooge to put the back-bench view of the party opposite. No one else dare defend this Order.
We know why the hon. Gentleman has taken up his cross and acted in this way. He has been in a spot of bother—he has not been behaving as well as he should in Committee, and he is working his passage by doing a little buttering up of the Minister. In the present rather difficult situation in which the party opposite rinds itself, I would not blame him for that. I should be the last person to blame anyone for indulging in a little reinsurance of that sort.
What I thought so interesting was the revelation of his social philosophy. He was dealing with the point of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering

(Mr. Mitchison) about spending £5 million a year on pigsty subsidies, while refusing to give any subsidy to overcrowded people. He said the two matters are quite different. Pigsties are part of the equipment of the farming industry, and the efficiency of that equipment must be preserved and improved. What are pigsties for? So far as I know, they are places in which to breed pigs. What are houses for—places in which to breed people.
By what kind of social philosophy can it be right to spend £5 million a year on breeding pigs in good, hygenic conditions, with the best of modern conditions, good plumbing and through ventilation—which, no doubt, make a good fat pig—and yet, at the same time, not accept the essential need to spend some public money on producing houses at prices which people can afford, in order that young couples can leave the houses of their in-laws and start a family in a place of their own? That is precisely the type of person who is being hit. It is not those in slum clearance areas, but those without homes, who are on the waiting list but cannot get a place of their own. It is those people whom the Tory Party put behind the pigs. I hope that the country will bear that in mind.
As has been said, it is interesting to know why the Minister has taken this decision now. Why is it being taken now? It is certainly not because the Government know what the housing position is. As my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, we have been putting down Questions to try to find out what local authorities are deciding about building for general need. We have been turned aside every time by the Minister, who says that he has not yet got the information. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not wait until he had the information to give to the House in the form of a White Paper, so that we could measure the position? If by the Housing Subsidies Act it was right to have a £10 subsidy, what has since happened to alter the situation? It certainly has not been a fall in the rate of interest or a fall in building prices.
What has happened to alter the situation? I think there are two major factors. When my hon. and learned Friend accused the Minister of not showing


sufficient foresight, I thought that he was being too charitable to him. I think that the Minister is showing far too much foresight. He has two facts to bear in mind. The first is, that when the figures do come out they will show that almost all local authorities are abandoning building for general needs, so he has to get this Measure through before the weight of evidence is against him.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in so far as the 92,000 houses, in tenders approved this year, are not for general needs, they are for slum clearance, which makes nonsense of the claim that slum clearance is not going ahead.

Mr. MacColl: But it has not been suggested that slum clearance is not going ahead. What has been suggested is that building for general needs is being abandoned. The hon. Gentleman, who was indicted a little earlier today for being too academic, should bear in mind the period between deciding to build houses and getting the tender approved by the Minister.
The answer is that practically all the tenders now approved by the Minister relate to cases where the original decisions were taken before the Housing Subsidies Act was passed, and not abandoned, because the authorities were committed to them. The test is what decisions local authorities are taking with the knowledge of the subsidy position? That is what we do not yet know. That is what the Minister has not waited for. Why has he not waited for it?
I will give another good reason connected with what has been happening upstairs: it is because the Government are committed to a free market in houses and, therefore, two things are essential in order to maintain rents. One is to have no alternative municipally provided houses available in competition with the old private landlord houses, and the second is to have a large number of people rushing around looking for houses. Then the Government can work the Rent Bill and get people to offer the rents which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have promised their supporters and contributors among the landlords.
Take the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) quoted—the case of the London County Council, where people have been told that if they are not in class A and in the very top level, with the highest number of points for houses, their chance of being housed on the London authority estates is negligible. The only thing which those people can do is to go out into the private market and bid up rents for decontrolled houses which are to be nicely available for them when the Rent Bill goes through.
I suggest to the House that this is far from innocent wandering on to uncharted ground. This is a devilish plan, if I may use the phrase, to force up the demand for houses in order that landlords can scoop higher rents, and a deliberate attempt to cut down municipal general house building in order that there shall not be available for the ordinary people local authority houses. The only local authority houses which will be available are those for slum clearance, where there is no private profit to be made out of them.
We do not know what is happening; but I want to quote some opinions of local authorities. I do not intend to give the names of the local authorities, although I have them here, because I have not their permission, and I do not think that it would be fair to do so. These are opinions in response to questions asked by the National Housing and Town Planning Council as to what their attitude was towards the abolition of the subsidy. Four of those local authorities have virtually no pre-war houses available with which to pool rents and, therefore, the whole of the Conservative argument about pooling rents goes by the board, because they have no houses to pool. Those are authorities in areas of rapid post-war development, where there is no pool of old houses. That is one type of case.
There are several other cases where the increased rents will be so high that the authorities will be unable in some cases to let the houses to the people on their waiting lists. There are eleven authorities, some in Wales, some in the Black country, some in Lancashire and some in the London area. One quotes a figure in the region of 47s. a week as being the rent for general housing needs and, therefore, it will not be possible in many cases to let them to people earning, say, £8 a week.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can my hon. Friend give the names?

Mr. MacColl: I would gladly give them, but I think that it would be unfair to do so without permission.
There are five authorities which say that they want to have the single-room subsidy available for the larger flats, because old people sometimes want to have a child to stay with them or want to have someone to move in who will be able to tend for them. These authorities, who believe in building sympathetically and imaginatively for the needs of old people, say, "Why cannot we get a subsidy in the case of two-bedroom houses for old people? Why must there he only the one-room house?"
One authority says that it has a large number of overcrowded and insanitary properties, which are not sufficiently insanitary to be declared uninhabitable, but where there is an urgent need to rehouse families for the sake of the children in those properties, and whom the authority is unable to rehouse because it cannot get the subsidy.
Another authority suggests that the Order ought to be postponed so that more time will be available to enable the authority to plan its future programme in the light of this crippling blow. After all, an authority has to plan ahead. Yet the Minister produces these knock-out blows with no notice at all, and completely dislocates the planning system of the authorities.
A rural authority says that it has in its district a large number of low wage-earners and young married couples whom it cannot house. There are thirty authorities who complain bitterly that this extra burden should be placed upon them when interest rates are increased out of all proportion. Another authority in Lancashire says that it is absolute nonsense to talk about people buying houses in its area because they have not the money to pay the deposits, and they cannot pay the contemporary interest rates to the building societies.
One authority says that it has had a special problem of finding accommodation for workers in the coal mining industry who have had to have priority in the national interest, and that therefore the authority has not been able to do so much

general building hitherto, but that now it is being caught just as much as some suburban and residential areas which have no problem of that sort to meet. This authority has done its duty, and now it is to be handicapped and prevented from building houses.
Yet another authority has quoted figures relating to an enormous increase in rents. It says that the changeover of the subsidy is going to make a difference of 4s. 11d. a week on the rents.
Those are practical examples, given in response to the question "How is this going to hit you?" If the Government feel any obligation at all to the local authorities, if they take any intertest at all in the local authorities' problems, they should have the courage to consult the local authorities and obtain their reactions. There is nothing more deplorable than the sneering way in which the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a joke of the fact that he had consulted the local authority associations and that they had agreed with everything that he had said except with the reduction of the subsidy. In other words, he has had a complete refusal from the local authorities to accept these proposals, and he thinks that is very funny. That is his attitude to the local authority associations.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I apologise for having heard only a little of it, but the little that I have heard makes it perfectly clear that a good deal needs to be said to enlighten some of those who have contributed to the debate during the last half hour.
I agree that a very strong social case can be made out for subsidising the rents of certain people in certain circumstances. I have always held that view; I have not departed from it, and I do not depart from it now. Indeed, we do that very thing, in many ways, for reasons which are different but which boil down to the same result. We take the problem family away from the overcrowded slum building or the insanitary property in which they live. If one of the children is in trouble, or if the mother is incapable of looking after the family, a local authority, often aided by State funds, takes them under its wing and


sees that the best possible attention is given to that family.
It may well be that the right way to handle a specific case or a number of cases is to arrange that the rate burden that has to be met by the income of the family shall be relieved, in whole or in part or in total, by some subvention either from State funds or local authority rate funds. I see nothing wrong in that. Indeed, I entirely approve the principle that where there is that kind of need it should be met by some machinery which is created for that purpose.
I do not take my stand in support of this Order on the simple ground that no one should ever give a subsidy towards the rent of the house of someone else. The whole basis of the arguments to which I have listened during the time I have been either in the inside gallery or in the House this afternoon seems to raise—

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Thompson: I was hidden from the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), and, fortunately, he was hidden from mine.
The whole burden of the argument seems to rest on a misapprehension, on the assumption that all the subsidy payments for which local authorities have qualified over the last thirty or more years of building subsidised houses are coming to an end. That is just not true. The fact of the matter is that the vast number of council and corporation dwellings which exist in the country today and which have been built under one or other of the schemes of subsidised building will continue to qualify for and attract the subsidy payment operative under the Act under which those houses or flats were built.
Local authorities will receive into their rate funds very large sums of money in many cases—that is certainly so in the case of my own city—each year to enable them to juggle about with their rents just as they think fit. Having referred to my own city and used the expression "juggle about" with their rents, I must say that that is just what my authority decided to do not very long ago; it juggled about with the rents, for reasons

which seemed good to those in charge of affairs at the present time. The point is that very large sums of money will continue to be paid year by year into the housing accounts of local authorities.
If there are cases of real hardship, then a local authority can decide for itself how it will use its own funds and subsidy payments to relieve them. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who have on many occasions, in my own experience, given lip service, at any rate, to a belief in the virility of British local government. Here is an occasion on which local democracy really can exercise its talents and make decisions for itself.
I see no reason why, in the exercise of their freedom to do this, local authorities should not only provide for their communities the houses which are needed but should be able to finance them and run them year by year on a basis appropriate to their own needs and circumstances. It may well be that, in order to do it properly or to the satisfaction of their own communities, they may have to provide a rate subvention. I personally am not opposed to that. I do not know what views my right hon. Friend has on the matter. If there is that kind of social need which must be met, then, in Heaven's name, let us meet it either by that means or by using an authority's global rent account together with the subsidy payments to the best advantage.
It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise either this part of our housing policy or any other part. The simple truth is that there are more houses being provided today for people to live in and more bases for the homes of British families being made available than ever the party opposite managed to provide. [Interruption.] Of course, it is not difficult for hon. Members to find excuses and apologies for their failures; none of us are bad at that. But the simple truth of the matter is that the houses have been and are being provided.
There is this to remember—and no one who lives in a great city can survey the social needs of the community which he serves or seeks to serve without being aware of it—that some of our great towns and cities have seen their centres dying, falling into disrepair and disuse, while we have been building great estates


miles out in the country on the peripheries of our cities.
For the first time since the war something really progressive and dynamic is being done to remove the canker at the heart of our great cities, particularly in my own city.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Which the hon. Gentleman's party left.

Mr. Thompson: Since the hon. Lady imagines, or likes to fancy she imagines, that there is some challenge in this, she now has an opportunity of using her great influence in the city to see that the challenge is taken up and that the centre of the city is rebuilt.

Mrs. Braddock: It will have to wait for us to do that.

Mr. Thompson: It will be done under legislation provided by the present Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend.
Whatever may be the views and niceties about putting on or taking off £10 or £20 a year of subsidy for this or that kind of house, if the result is that we bring the people out of houses that are 100 to 150 years old and put them into houses with baths, hot water, a little fresh air and decent amenities, then our housing policy will have been justified. On those grounds, I support my right hon. Friend in what he is doing today.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I do not know the source upon which the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) bases the assumptions which he made in his speech, one of which was that more houses were being provided today than ever before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was certainly the impression he gave hon. Members on this side of the House. Evidently the hon. Gentleman has not looked recently at the Housing Return for England and Wales up to 30th September, 1956, which shows the opposite tendency to that which the hon. Gentleman has been indicating to the House.
The figures in that return indicate quite clearly that in 1953, for instance, local authorities completed the construction of 202,000 dwellings, that in 1955 the number fell to 162,000, and that in 1956, taking the figures already available for

nine months of the year and averaging them over the whole of the year, the number of completions will have fallen to 135,000. That means that since 1953 the number of houses completed by local authorities will have fallen somewhere in the region of 67,000.

Mr. K. Thompson: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, and I delayed doing so until I saw the purpose of his argument. I said nothing about that at all. What I said was that under the Administration of this Government more houses have been built than were built under the Administration of the party opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I do not apologise for it.

Mr. Sparks: If the hon. Gentleman tots up the figures of the Labour Government's record and compares them with the record of his hon. and right hon. Friends opposite, I do not think he will find that there is much difference between the two. It is quite true that for about a year, and possibly a little longer, the total of completions of both private enterprise and local authority building in the country, including Scotland, did top the 300,000 mark. Since then it has been gradually falling. The Minister said just now that at the end of this year there will be more than 300,000 dwellings completed in England, Wales and Scotland, including local authority and private enterprise building. If I were a betting man I would be prepared to put my shirt on a bet with him about that.

Mr. Sandys: I said "about 300,000".

Hon. Members: Ah.

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD, he will see that is what I said.

Mr. Sparks: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "about". With all respect, I do not think he qualified the remark when it was made originally, but I should doubt very much whether it reaches that limit, because the figures in the Housing Returns already prove that the number of completions in England and Wales by private enterprise, local authority and other agencies in 1954 was 308,000. Averaging the completions during the first nine months of this year over the whole twelve months, the number of completions from all sources will fall to


261,000 from 308,000. I should point out here that the average for the last quarter will be much higher than the figure will actually be, because the last quarter usually contains the lowest figures, but I have given the Minister the benefit of the doubt there. If we add to that figure approximately 24,000 houses to be completed in Scotland, we get a figure of about 285,000 dwellings to be completed from all sources in the present year.
Our case against the right hon. Gentleman is not based merely on the figures for this year in comparison with the highest period. The effect of his policy has not yet been felt by local authorities, and the Minister continues to ignore the fact that local authorities have been rushing forward their schemes for his approval in order to get the benefit of the subsidy, knowing that it was to come off. Of course they knew it was coming off. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. He knows that he has been trying to pull wool over our eyes all the evening.
We can only more accurately judge the effect of his policy by the figures we shall get next year and the year after. Those who will be living at that time will find that the figures will have fallen substantially, because the effect of his policy will not be felt until next year and the year after. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was correct in saying that the policy of the Government will bring local authority housing for general needs to a halt. But he did not say "within six months of the passing of the Act." These policies take some time to work out throughout the country and throughout local authority associations. We feel that the proposals to abandon subsidies for general need is unfair to a very large section of the community.
We have no disagreement with the Minister on the slum clearance programme of his policy. We all want to get rid of the slums as quickly as we can, but that will take quite a time to do. At the same time the Minister must not run away with the idea that if a person is not housed in a slum he is fairly comfortably off for housing accommodation because that is not so.
Since 1945 about 500,000 people have been moved from slums into new dwellings. The problem now, especially in many parts of London and other cities and towns, is not necessarily a slum problem. I understand that the slum problem in London is likely to be completely eradicated in five or seven years' time unless the effect of the rise in interest rates on housing loans slows progress down, which will probably be the case.
The problem in many areas now is one of overcrowding. We all get letters on this subject. A typical case is that of a man, his wife and two or three children living in one room or two rooms. Another is that of old people living in two rooms and at the same time accommodating a son and his family or a daughter and her family who have been thrown out of their own accommodation because they cannot afford to pay sufficient rent or because the landlord wants to get rid of them.
Many of the people living in overcrowded conditions suffer from very serious diseases, such as tuberculosis. Many children have to live and sleep in the same room as adults suffering from tuberculosis and like diseases. Such people are not in slums, but they are not far from being in slum conditions.
Our complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman is putting a stop to the rehousing of people living in overcrowded conditions. We think that is wrong and unjust. We oppose the Order because it will make the plight of people in overcrowded conditions far more desperate than it is. It will aggravate illness and bring despair and despondency to decent people. This is a very small-minded thing for the Government to do.

Mr. James Griffiths: They are a small-minded Government.

Mr. Sparks: That is true, and I am afraid they always have been. The country could well afford to continue the subsidies at the old rate and thus help local authorities which have overcrowding problems although, technically, no slum problems. Local authorities will be deprived of the benefit of the subsidy, and they will also have to face the higher interest rates on housing loans, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to put completely out of his mind.
These two factors together will make far worse the plight of people on housing lists who live in areas which are overcrowded but which are not technically slums. Such people come to us and beg us to do something to help them. We should all like to do something, but we know what a hopeless task it is. It all depends upon the local authorities. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the number of dwellings being built by private enterprise is increasing. The number of houses being built by local authorities to let nearly equals the number of private enterprise houses built not for let, but for sale.
People who live in overcrowded conditions, bottled up in one or two rooms, cannot afford to buy at present prices. There was a time when they could consider such a proposition, but because the Government have raised the rate of interest on housing loans, and the interest on building society loans has increased from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. while the building societies will advance only 80 per cent. of the valuation as against 90 per cent., and in many cases only on new dwellings, people can not now afford to buy a house which they might have been able to afford a few years ago. It is possible that even private enterprise building will reach a saturation point where it will be found difficult to sell houses, except to people with pots of money.
I hope that the House will reject the Order which is unjust. It will cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering to people in overcrowded conditions who look to local authorities and this House to find a solution to those problems, a solution which they are not likely to find for a long time to come.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will agree that at times the proceedings of the House should the televised. I wonder what the country would have thought had it seen the benches opposite completely empty during the time we have been discussing this very human topic, the housing of the people. We had an intervention from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—a Scot on an English matter; not that we object, but

I sometimes wonder what would happen if some of us intervened on Scottish matters. He was called in because no English Member opposite dared to speak. Then attention was called to the fact by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), and so the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) was called in, after not having listened to the debate. He got up not knowing what he was to say and sat down not knowing what he had said, and he has now left the Chamber again.
The Minister does not treat the House very seriously, as is shown by the facts which he attempts to give us. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite really ought to think of their treatment of ordinary men and women to whom a decent house is the first essential of civilised life. I want to refer to the topic with which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes effectively dealt. I do not know whether the Minister expects to have headlines in the papers tomorrow to say that local authorities agree with his action. Every local authority association in the country disapproves of this and of the previous Measure.
The right hon. Gentleman is a Minister with a record of having caused at least one local authority association to take an action which in my long local government experience—and I have been associated with local government for thirty years—has never happened before. The Urban District Councils' Association called a special conference of all urban district councils. The vast majority of those councils are controlled by Tory and not Labour majorities and yet that conference passed a resolution condemning the Minister and his action and asking him to receive a deputation. The Minister refused to meet a deputation. He talks about local authority associations agreeing with what is in the Bill. Why does he try to mislead the country and hon. Members?
The hon. Member for Walton talked about the vitality of local government. Under the Labour Government, local government was local government, and for those engaged in it it was paradise. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) smiles. I do not think that he will smile in a moment. Under Tory Governments, for members of local authorities and local


government officials local government has been a nightmare. Hon. Members opposite seem to forget that in the early years after the war—1945, 1946 and 1947 —the Labour Government were pulling this country round after six years of total war, starting from scratch and having to deal with bomb damage.
During the whole of that period, the rates of interest remained static at 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. During the whole of that period housing subsidies remained static—£16 10s. from the central Government and £5 10s. from local rates, making a total of £22. That is stability. That is a situation in which local authorities can plan their work and can get it done.
What has happened under this Government? On 12 occasions since 1952 rates of interest have changed. In 1952, subsidies went up, because at that time the Tories had a small majority and they dare not face the country at a General Election with increased rents. The Minister of Housing and Local Government at that time—he is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—contributed to the downfall of his right hon. Friend who was then the Chancellor by increasing the subsidies to £26 14s. from the centre and £8 18s. from local rate funds, making a total of £35 12s.
Those subsidies were changed again in 1955. They were reduced to £22 1s. and £7 7s. respectively, making a total of £29 8s. They were changed again in 1956, to £10 and they have been changed again now, to nil. Those changes have meant that local authorities have scarcely known where they were from day to day. I do not know whether the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, during the period in which they have been at the Ministry, have yet learned anything about local government. From their statements here it sometimes appears that they have not, but I do not think that they are quite so daft as that. They must have learned something.
Surely they know that housing is a matter of programming. Before a local authority can begin to build houses it has to set up a committee to decide to purchase the land; it then has to go to the Minister for compulsory purchase orders; it has then to purchase the land and appoint an architect for the layout and the housing scheme; it then appoints committees to decide whether the plans

should be accepted; the project then has to go to tender and the council has to consult the Minister when it has got the tenders in—and it can then start the work.
From the conception of the plan to the commencement of the work takes at least two years. Under the Tory Government local authorities never know where they are. They have thought that they could produce houses for £X per week, but by the time they have got the land interest charges have risen, as have costs; by the time they have appointed the architect, costs have risen again. At every stage, costs have gone up, and local authorities have never known where they are.
As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) the Minister completely ignored the effect of interest. Since this Government came to power every council house built for general need costs 18s. per week more in interest charges alone. Interest of I per cent. on money means 6s. a week on the rates and a 3 per cent. increase in the price of money means 18s. a week on the rates. The subsidy has been reduced from its maximum point of £35 12s. to nothing, which is a loss of 13s. 6d. per week. If the Minister considers that that is an unfair statement and that the subsidy of £35 12s. was increased to meet the first ¾ per cent. increase in interest charges imposed by his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, we will take the subsidy figure of £22 per annum as it was during the lifetime of the Labour Government, and that represents a figure of 8s. a week. It means that 26s. a week has been added to the rent by this Government on every local authority house which is built. Had I the time I could go on to deal with whether it is the same type of house.
This Minister, who talks glibly when referring to the livelihood and standard of living of ordinary people referred to about 9d. a week on the rent. We did not hear anything about 9d. a week tonight. The Minister chided me because I mentioned it in the debate and quoted Wellingborough as an example. Does the Minister know that the rents of council houses in the Wellingborough urban district have gone up from 15s. to £1, and that that sort of thing is happening all over the country? Because of the


actions of this Government, interest charges have gone up; there has been a reduction of subsidy, and a withdrawal of rate fund subsidy.
We are now in the position of having two types of constituents attending our constituency surgeries. I sometimes think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have given up meeting their constituents. At one time we were interviewing constituents who needed a house. Now we meet constituents who ask us to persuade the local authority to get them a cheaper house, because they cannot afford to pay the rent of the one they are in. Last week I had a pathetic case, and I saw the Clerk of the Wellingborough Urban District Council. I thought it one of those cases in which the council would do what it could if it knew all the facts. The clerk said to me, "If we could do something, we would, but we have so many widows and aged persons whom we have to shift round from the more expensive houses to the less expensive ones. It is often the case now that many of these people cannot afford the rents of 1922, 1923 and 1924 houses, because we have had to increase them in order to keep down the price of the others."
I am not so generous as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I think the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are evil. They deliberately do this. They wanted to make it more difficult for ordinary men and women to have a decent home. That is what they set out to do. They do not mind if ordinary men and women have to "double up" and live in rooms. They hate to see a decent working-class boy and girl get married and start off with a house of their own. They want them to do what their parents and grandparents did—get a room or a couple of rooms, and build up their furniture bit by bit, while all the time they are living in someone else's house.
Local authorities cannot meet the need, although the Minister talks about tenders coming in. Never since 1946 were fewer houses in contemplation by local authorities. Local authorities are not going forward with their schemes because tenants would not be able to afford the rents for them. We are now providing council houses at rents of 38s., 42s. and 45s. per week. Have not Government supporters had examples of reservists

being called to the Colours saying that they cannot afford to pay their rent, and asking, "What about some special grant?" Even when they have had the special hardship grant they have not been able to deal with the matter.
The housing lists of local authorities are still as high as ever. I have mentioned Wellingborough Urban District Council. No one is considered for putting on the consideration list of that council until he has been on the ordinary waiting list for two years. Government supporters must have the same experience in this respect as most of us on this side of the House. In my constituency, a person on the housing list can reasonably expect to be housed within six years.

Mr. E. C. Redhead: That is very good fortune.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, it is very good fortune, but it will not be six years now.
The Wellingborough Urban and Rural District Councils are not building houses for general needs. The Minister has said "Ah, but I am undertaking slum clearance". Is he? I do not claim to be a mathematician, but if our figures are correct they are quite striking. The programme was for dealing with 375,000 slums in five years. That means 75,000 slums a year. According to the Minister's own returns, only 16,751 slums have been closed in the first six months of this year. Let us be generous and say that in the next six months there will be the same figure. That makes 33,000 in the first twelve months, or fewer than 50 per cent. of the programme.
The Minister seeks to justify it as a great achievement, saying that it is really remarkable that, having got down the housing subsidies he can get 50 per cent. of the slum clearance that he programmed to do when he was also building for general needs. Although the Minister has done away with general needs building he is now only dealing with 50 per cent. of the slum clearance programme that he would have dealt with under the programme in addition to general needs building. I am not very impressed with those figures.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) interjected when my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) was speaking to say that in his own constituency land had all been


taken up and so the local authority could not build. The Labour Government forestalled that by providing the New Towns Act, 1946. We also prepared the Town Development Act which was finally brought in by the next Government in 1952.
Even in the new towns, housing contracts are slowing down. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how many contracts have been let in Welwyn Garden City in the last twelve months? Houses are still being built, but it takes two years for a contract to run through. The houses required are not being built. Existing contracts are running out and new ones have not been let. If that is happening in Welwyn Garden City I am willing to gamble that it is happening in other towns as well. It is happening there not because of subsidies, which have been kept level, but because of the rates of interest and rising housing costs.
If we turn to the expanding towns, we find that the position is the same. Because the Town Development Act was on the stocks the Labour Government negotiated with the Borough of Swindon and the Urban District of Bletchley about London's overspill population. Those are the only two schemes going forward under the Town Development Act, 1952. The Minister has not put any other scheme before the House. The Bletchley and Swindon schemes are the result of the Labour Government. It is true that in my constituency come interest is being shown by Wellingborough and another is proposed at Letchworth, but what has happened to schemes which were under way a few months ago? They have gone out because the local authorities cannot face the increased rates of interest.

Mr. Jack Jones: The contractors are going broke.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not worried about the contractors. They have had a good time up to now. I am concerned with the people who would be living in these houses which ought to be built. Perhaps the contractors will think of the Labour Government and the good times made for them, and the difficulties which they are having now under the Tory Government. Perhaps they will reduce their contributions to the Tory Party funds at the next General Election.
I admire a person who is frank and says what he thinks. I would rather the Minister said exactly what he means. What he intends is to lower the standard of life of the mass of people of this country. They are getting too much money in their pockets, he says. If he puts up their rents they will have less to spend on food, clothing and other amenities. That is what he set out to do, and he is achieving it to a minor extent, but in each of these debates I have warned him that all he will really do is to antagonise those of us associated with the trade union movement. That will have repercussions in wage claims and other ways.
Let the right hon. Gentleman take warning. I think he had a letter from the Trades Union Congress yesterday or today with reference to the Rent Bill. That Bill is an attack on the same type of person. Let him withdraw that Bill; let him show the way by withdrawing this Order tonight. If that is not done I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby against this monstrous piece of legislation, which is aimed at reducing the living standards of ordinary men and women.

9.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) certainly over-eggs the pudding. I do not think many people, even those whose political persuasion is not that of hon. Members on this side of the House, would find very credible the motives of unrelieved malevolence which he attributes to the Government and to my right hon. Friend.
Before I come to the major arguments on this Order, it might be convenient if I deal with the few points of detail relating to it which were raised in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to a case in which a family were moved from a slum house and rehoused in a National Coal Board house pending being rehoused in a local authority house. He asked me whether in that case the local authority would lose the slum clearance subsidy on the new house provided. The answer is that they will not


and that a circular covering this point is in course of issue to local authorities.

Mr. William Ainsley: I have a letter from a local authority on the subject. The provision of certain houses has been approved by the Minister under slum clearance provisions, but because in the meanwhile one of the tenants has moved into a National Coal Board house the Ministry state that the local authority will not get a subsidy on the house being provided in that case.

Mr. Powell: I will gladly look at that case, and I should be obliged if the hon. Member would send it to me, but the position is that which I have just stated, and that is being made clear to local authorities.
The hon. and learned Member also queried whether it was right to make the special exception in favour of dwellings for old people in the form of a subsidy attached to a particular size of dwelling rather than to a particular kind of occupant.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member did not criticise it, it is nevertheless a point worth making.
In the case of a subsidy like this, which is to be payable in respect of a house for 60 years, it would be quite impracticable to ensure that a particular sort of occupant was always in that house and to tie the hands of a local authority in that way. I think it will be agreed that this impulse towards providing an even higher proportion of dwellings particularly suitable for elderly persons is best imparted by retaining the general needs subsidy for the one-bedroomed house.

Mr. Mitchison: I only welcome the Minister's complete change of attitude. I hope he will repent further.

Mr. Powell: A number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have treated the decision to bring forward this Order as if it were a completely new decision which had been sprung on the House and the country. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), for example, said that the change had been made without any notice. The Order merely implements the decision to abolish the general needs subsidy which was announced by my right

hon. Friend as long ago as 27th October, 1955. His words were:
we have come to the conclusion that the subsidy on future houses, built for general needs, should be abolished altogether. In order not to make the transition too abrupt, we propose, for a year or so, to pay a much reduced annual subsidy of £10 per house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545. c. 378.]

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Powell: That has happened. There is no question of this being an additional cut in the subsidies or an additional subsidy change of which notice was not given. It is the second and remaining stage in carrying out a decision which was clearly and definitely announced on 27th October, 1955.
The hon. and learned Member also criticised my right hon. Friend for having on that occasion and on many occasions since stated that
it was the intention of Parliament that the subsidy should not go to persons for whom it was not needed and that the relief should be given only to those who need it, and only for so long as they do need it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545. c. 380.]
We had quite a long hunt on a false scent which the hon. and learned Member laid down by seeking to draw a distinction between that principle and the payment of an agricultural subsidy on pigsties. Let us get it quite clear that this notion of subsidies to be applied according to need and only when there is need, is one which is fully accepted and has been maintained for decades by the party opposite. In their own publications, they provide—and I have commended it to the House on previous occasions—a useful anthology of their views on this matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What is the price of it?

Mr. Powell: Price 1s.—"Published by the Labour Party." I do not know if it is still in print.

Mr. Shurmer: We have not put up our prices.

Mr. Powell: In order not to weary the House, I will, if I may, quote only one or two statements. There was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who said to the Labour Party Annual Conference in 1950:
There is no justification for arguing that subsidies should be increased in respect of


post-war housing rents. But there is a case, nobody has ever denied it, for adjusting the position to individual families and individual houses.
One can go right through the housing policy of the party opposite—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish, I will quote another—

Mr. Lindgren: Can the Parliamentary Secretary let the House know how it can be done now? The Government have withdrawn the national subsidy and the rate subsidy, so the houses are on an economic rent, and there is an end of it.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the rate subsidy is not withdrawn but is now discretionary. He also knows perfectly well that local authorities are free to apply as they think best—and preferably, I would say, in accordance with the principles which are shared by both sides of this House—the very large pool of subsidies which is payable annually. Therefore, there is really no difference of opinion about this matter, that subsidies ought to be used in such a way that they go to the families which need them most.
A good deal has been said in the course of this debate about the effect of the increased interest rates—

Mr. Mitchison: What about the pigsties?

Mr. Powell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to deal with that, I would like to ask him if it is his view that agricultural subsidies should be paid on a means test.

Mr. Mitchison: My view most certainly is that if housing subsidies are to be given only to those who need it, better protection should not be given to the builders of pigsties.

Mr. Powell: At any rate we have it established that the party opposite and the Government are in agreement that housing subsidies should be applied in accordance with need, and applied to the families that need them most.
A good deal has been said in this debate about the effect of the increased interest rates over the last twelve months, and the increased outgoings, in consequence, in respect of houses which are now being built, or which will be built

in the immediate future. That, of course, resolves itself into the main argument that the general needs subsidy should not now be abolished and, indeed, into the still wider argument that the general needs subsidy should be increased. So one is really dealing with the argument about interest rates when one deals with the general issue of the amount and the abolition of the subsidy itself.

Mr. Lindgren: Can the hon. Gentleman say why his right hon. Friend's predecessor increased the subsidy from £22 to £35 12s. in 1952, when interest rates went up by only¾ per cent.?

Mr. Powell: Part of the answer to that is that there had been a very big increase in building costs during the period of office of the party opposite which had not been allowed for in the housing subsidies payable during those years.
The main argument which has been put against this Order is that, taken in combination with the effect of the increased interest rates, it will not enable local authorities to go on building for general needs. That has been the major contention advanced from the benches opposite against this Order. I agree that this proposition cannot be tested by examining the number of houses being completed in the current year, because, of course, those were in tenders approved before the beginning of November, 1955. It is relevant, however, to look at the intentions of local authorities as they were formulated after knowledge not only of the Housing Subsidies Act of this year but also of this further step which, as I have explained, was then clearly forecast by my right hon. Friend.
The returns which local authorities have made, and a large majority of those returns are now available, show, as I informed the House in the debate on the Address on 7th November, that
local authorities as a whole were envisaging the submission of no fewer tenders this year than were approved in the previous financial year 1955–56."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th Nov., 1956; Vol. 560, c. 170.]
So, with all the facts in front of them, with knowledge of the 1956 Act, and with knowledge of this intended Order, local authorities are still proposing to submit tenders for approval at a rate at least, not less than that at which they were being approved in the previous financial year.

Mr. Sparks: We should have some light shed on these figures, because I think that the Minister's right hon. Friend did say that up to the first ten months of this year 92,000 houses had been approved in tender. If we average that for the year, I think that it works out to about 110,000 houses approved in tender. Does not that prove our point that the Government have sanctioned the building of only 110,000 houses in twelve months, which is the lowest figure for five years?

Mr. Powell: The first point to get clear is that neither the reduction of the subsidy to f10 nor the certain knowledge that before the end of this financial year, to put it at the outside, it would be abolished—

Mr. Shurmer: Who said so?

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend said so—

Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman did not give a particular date.

Mr. Powell: I should have thought that "a year or so" from October, 1955, would not justify the local authorities working on the assumption that they would be available after April, 1957—this knowledge has not prevented local authorities from deciding to ask for approval of tenders in this financial year.
This is supported by the fact which my right hon. Friend quoted that the number of tenders actually approved in the first ten months of this year, that is tenders which were deliberately accepted in the knowledge of the effect of the reduction to £10, is virtually the same as the number which was approved in the corresponding previous ten months when there was no knowledge of the reduction of the general needs subsidy.

Mr. David Griffiths: While we cannot contradict the hon. Gentleman that the number of tenders is similar to what it was last year, will he give us the number of houses that were tendered for.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has quoted the number of houses in tenders approved in both cases. The point is that there is no appreciable result discernible from the reduction of the general needs

subsidy or from the declared intention to abolish it.
We have been told repeatedly throughout this debate that local authorities, up and down the country, because of the reduction and now the abolition of the general needs subsidy, are ceasing to build houses for general needs, although there is still an urgent need for houses in their areas. That has been the contention which has been advanced time after time.
There is a Section in the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, which lays down that where there is urgent need for more housing accommodation to be provided by the local authority and where, without special aid provision of that extra accommodation would either result in the imposition of an unreasonably heavy rate burden or would necessitate the charging of unreasonably high rents, a local authority can apply to my right hon. Friend for large additional subsidies. They have to show that there is an urgent need for additional accommodation to be provided by them, and they have to show that they cannot do that under the current subsidies without either increasing the rates unduly or charging unduly high rents. Out of over 1,400 housing authorities in England and Wales, ten local authorities have so far even suggested that they might come within that category. In the face of that fact, it is absurd to argue that local authorities up and down the country, without even making an application to my right hon. Friend, are deciding to abandon building for general needs because they cannot do so for financial reasons.

Mr. Mitehison: Is not the answer very simple? At the end of it, it rests with the discretion of the Minister, and they know the Minister.

Mr. Lindgren: He would not even meet them.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman asking the House to believe that a local authority with an urgent housing need, which can show that it cannot meet it under existing subsidy conditions because of an unreasonably heavy rate burden or unreasonably high rents, does not even come forward and make a case to my right hon. Friend? That is patently absurd.
There is a tremendous amount of confusion of thought on the part of those


who think that the existence of a requirement for more houses to meet general needs, the needs often—I agree with the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—of people living in very overcrowded conditions, is the same thing as the necessity for a continued increase in the annual subsidy payments pro rata with every house so provided. In other words, it is a confusion between the need to build houses and the need further to subsidise rents.
I do not know whether hon. Members will have noticed—and it is very relevant—the results of a survey which was recently made by the city of Leeds. The Leeds Corporation has records of about 1,400 overcrowded houses, and it examined the cases of 77 families who were at the top of the list for priority treatment. An examination of those 77 cases
showed that one-third had a household income of more than £1,000 a year, and that half of the cases had household incomes of more than £750 a year. This was on their own admission, after all tax deductions had been made. Only three had net incomes of less than £10 a week.
In the very worst case, of people living in the very worst conditions,
the recorded income which was going into that house … after deduction of tax was £1,600 a year.
In the face of the facts which I have put before the House, both of the rate at which local authorities are still inviting tenders for the building of houses and of the applications for special treatment under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act of this year, it is ludicrous to argue that the reduction and the abolition of the general needs subsidy will prevent local authorities from building houses that are required for general needs.
Of course, more of the houses in total which local authorities build will go to the rehousing of persons from the slums. That is the intention. That was the intention of the shift of emphasis. That was the intention of leaving a differential subsidy attached to houses built for replacement of slum dwellings. But hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "Local authorities are still tendering at the same rate but those houses are going to slum clearance," and at the same time argue that the slum clearance campaign is not getting into its stride.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough, when we were considering the Housing Subsidies Bill on Third Reading at the beginning of this year, ventured upon a prophecy. He said:
The number of slum dwellers who will be rehoused next year and under this Bill will be far fewer than the number rehoused under the Acts each year since 1945–46.… The actual number of people rehoused and the actual number of houses built will be much fewer.… This Bill is not giving them"—
That is to say, the local authorities—
any encouragement for slum clearance at all." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2385–6]

Mr. Lindgren: Perfectly true.

Mr. Powell: A refutation of that statement, that slum clearance is going to decline after the enactment of the 1956 Housing Subsidies Act, is provided by the statistics of this campaign which is now starting, which show—if hon. Members will look at Tables VI and VII in the last Quarterly Return—that in every single stage of slum clearance work there is an acceleration quarter by quarter.

Mr. Lindgren: rose—

Mr. Powell: May I just finish this? In that stage which most clearly indicates what will be the rate of work over the coming twelve months, namely the submission of clearance areas to my right hon. Friend, the rate this year, as my right hon. Friend has told the House tonight, is double the rate last year; and that acceleration is going on quarter by quarter.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman really is playing with figures. What I stated in Committee is a fact, according to his own returns. He will not complete 33,000 this year, which is less than half of the 75,000 programmed.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman should not stumble from one disproved prophecy to another which will be disproved in one or two months' time. He was wrong about what would be the consequences of the 1956 Act. Tonight he has been favouring us with further prophecies of what will be the consequences of this Order. He will be wrong there again.

Mr. Lindgren: Really. if the Parliamentary Secretary is professing to deal with the facts, he should deal with them. My statement was correct, and the Parliamentary Secretary's statement now


is about as correct as the Minister's statement about a 9d.-a-week increase.

Mr. Powell: All this can be looked at in a cool frame of mind; all these assertions can be looked at calmly and coldly in HANSARD tomorrow morning. What HANSARD attributed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough as his view of the 1956 Act was that not only would the Bill not give the local authorities any encouragement for slum clearance at all, but the actual number of people rehoused and the number of houses built would be much fewer as a result of the Bill. In fact, there are much more, every quarter which goes by, in every single phase of slum clearance work.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. ThorntonKemsley) referred in his speech earlier in

this debate to the only previous slum clearance campaign which this country has known. My hon. Friend reminded the House that that slum clearance campaign was launched by a similar concentration of incentive and effort in the form of the Measure brought in by the present Lord Kennet in 1933. I believe—and now I am going to make a prophecy myself too—that when people come to look back upon the slum clearance campaign which in the next five or ten years will root out the vast majority of slums in this country, they will see the decision announced by my right hon. Friend on 27th October, 1955, and which this Order implements, as the decisive event in the launching of that campaign.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes, 241.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H, P.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, Sir William (W'Iwich, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Longden, Gilbert
Ormsby-Core, Hon. W. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Storey, S.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Page, R. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Peyton, J. W. W.
Teeling, W.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Temple, J. M.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Pitman, I, J.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pott, H. P.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, M.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. p.
Vosper, D. F.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (S. M'lebone)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Marples, A. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Major Patrick


Marshall, Douglas
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mathew, R.
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Maude, Angus
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sharples, R. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Shepherd, William
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Woollam, John Victor


Neave, Airey
Soames, Capt. C.



Nicholls, Harmar
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Mr. Richard Thompson and


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Mr. Bryan.


NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Albu, A. H.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp;Finsbury)
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, W. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. C.
Hannan, W.


Anderson, Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Awbery, S. S.
Cronin, J. D.
Hastings, S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hayman, F. H.


Baird, J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Heeley, Denis


Balfour, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Herbison, Miss M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hobson. C. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Benson, G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holmes, Horaoe


Beswick, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, Douglas


Blackburn, F.
Dodds, N. N.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Blenkinsop, A.
Donnelly, D. L.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hunter, A. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fienburgh, W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, H. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Erie
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Carmichael, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Anthony
Kenyon, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grey, C. F.
King, Dr. H. M.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lawson, G. M.







Ledger, R. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Palmer, A. M. P.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Parker, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Sylvester, C. O.


Logan, D. G.
Paton, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacColl, J. E.
Pentland, N.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McGhee, H. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McInnes, J.
Popplewell, E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, E.


McLeavy, Frank
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Probert, A. R.
Tomney, F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Proctor, W. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Marion, Simon
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Randall, H. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rankin, John
Watkins, T. E.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, D.


Mason, Roy
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Reid, William
West, D. G.


Mellish, R. J.
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Messer, Sir F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Monslow, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Royle, C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Mort, D. L.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Moss, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Mulley, F. W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oram, A. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woof, R. E.


Orbach, M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Owen, W. J.
Steele, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)



Paget, R. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Resolved,
That the Draft Housing Subsidies Order, House on 1st November, in the last Session

1956, a copy of which was laid before this of Parliament, be approved.

VISITING FORCES ORDER

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
The Order which we ask the House to approve arises from our obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I do not think it requires a very long speech from me, but the House should know how the need for it arises.
It will be appreciated that under N.A.T.O. we have to envisage the stationing of troops of one member country in the territory of another. This relationship was broadly regularised under the N.A.T.O. Status of Forces Agreement, 1951. In order that we should play our part in that Agreement, we enacted in 1952 the Visiting Forces Act and in 1954 the Application of Law Order. We had some discussion about these Measures, particularly the 1954 one, and there will be hon. Members present tonight who will recall the main points which were then involved.
The need for tonight's Order arises from the fact that the 1952 Act and the 1954 Order were limited to those countries which had ratified or acceded to the Agreement by the early part of 1954. Since then there have been additions. Luxembourg, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Portugal and Italy have ratified or acceded to the Agreement. We are under a clear obligation to extend our legislation so that it may cover any forces which those countries may send here under N.A.T.O. arrangements.
Accordingly, Article 3 of the present draft Order re-enacts Article 3 (1) of the 1954 Order, extending it to the visiting forces of the six countries which I have mentioned. I think it relevant to add here that at the moment the only visiting forces permanently stationed in this country are Canadians and Americans. There is no reason to suppose that there will be others in the foreseeable future, for that is unlikely.
It will be observed that the Order is not confined to Article 3. It has a second purpose, which can be simply explained. On 1st January next, the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, will come into force. They are the fruits of much industry and discussion by hon. Members here and in another place. Some of their provisions ought to be extended to visiting forces, as were the corresponding provisions of the old Acts. The old will expire in a matter of days from now. In all cases I can assure the House that the new powers are substantially the same as the old. Cross-references to the Army Act will be found in the second, third and fourth Schedules of the Order.
There is one final purpose of the Order. We have included in it references to legislation which has been passed since 1954 and which could have some significance for visiting forces. The new Road Traffic Act is an obvious example and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, is another. In effect, what the Order does is bring our statutory relations with visiting forces of N.A.T.O. countries up to date. It embraces later members now excluded and covers later legislation, notably the Army and Air Force Acts. I can assure the House that it introduces no fresh principle of policy and simply accords with our recognised obligations under the N.A.T.O. agreements.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: As the Under-Secretary of State has said, we had some discussion, some rather animated discussion, on the 1954 Order when that was laid by the Government. The Under-Secretary has explained why he thinks it now necessary to bring in the new Order, but I want to take this opportunity of shortly reverting to one or two of the topics which were discussed in the course of that 1954 debate.
As the Under-Secretary has explained, certain new countries have been added to the list of countries brought within the ambit of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, and it may well be for the reasons he has given that it is necessary that they should now be included. But that does bring up this perhaps somewhat vexed question of the reciprocity conditions which are at present in force or will be brought into


force in other countries which are within the scope of the 1952 Act.
I remind the Under-Secretary that when we had the debate in 1954 on the 1954 Order certain questions were put to the Government which were answered as at the then state of affairs, and I should like him to say what the position is at the moment. I refer particularly to the question of reciprocity in the United States. At that time, as the then Attorney-General and the then Home Secretary explained, it was thought that the necessary reciprocity conditions could be introduced in the United States of America without the necessity of legislation passing through Congress.
Indeed, doubts were expressed on the other side of the House as to whether it was possible to implement or introduce reciprocity conditions without such legislation. It was doubted whether such legislation was constitutionally possible in terms of the United States constitution. The Attorney-General at the time gave such information to the House as he was able to give. I should now like the Under-Secretary to say what has now been done in the United States about introducing adequate and satisfactory reciprocity conditions which ensure for any forces or any individual service personnel who may be there the same protection, the same immunity and privileges as are accorded to members of visiting forces in this country, in particular whether any cases have actually been brought up in which the question of the situation and status of British personnel in the United States has been tested.
I think that when we had that debate in 1954 one such case had arisen, but the state of administrative or other regulations in force in the United States was not, so far as the then Government spokesmen were aware, tested or brought into issue. I should be grateful if the Minister would enlighten the House as to the present situation in the United States.
I think that we were also told at that time that in the Commonwealth countries there was complete reciprocity, with the possible exception of India and Pakistan, in which countries it would be quite simple to introduce the necessary reciprocal provisions. I should like to know what the state of affairs is in those two

Commonwealth countries now. We were also told that our European partners in N.A.T.O., as at that date, had made the necessary provisions in their own domestic legislative systems. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that he has taken up with the Governments of the countries which are now being admitted the question of reciprocity, and that they have given him satisfactory assurances that they either have made or will at an early date make the necessary provisions in their own domestic legal systems.
The Order raises a factor which is undoubtedly of major importance, and I am quite sure that the Minister will agree that there is natural anxiety among hon. Members on this side of the House that that aspect of the question will always be borne in mind by the Government should any further orders of this nature be introduced. He will appreciate our anxiety to be assured that adequate steps were taken by the Government before presenting the Order.
I should like to touch upon that part of the Order which relates to the road traffic provisions. At first sight, I concede that it does no more than adapt the existing 1954 Order by making reference to the latest Road Traffic Act introduced by the Government. The Minister has already assured the House that no changes of principle affecting that aspect of responsibility for road traffic accidents are introduced by the Order. I think I am right in saying that we were assured in 1954 that, broadly speaking, under the Visiting Forces Act the situation was that if a member of any visiting force drove a private car in this country he had to comply with the legislative provisions of our own domestic law with regard to compulsory insurance, the manner in which the car was driven, and so on. If he were driving a Service vehicle on duty, however, under Section 9 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, the Minister of Defence would deal with any claims that arose as the result of an accident in which that vehicle might be involved.
The third category of case concerned members of visiting forces who were driving Service vehicles, but not on duty. We were assured, if I accurately recollect the debates at that time, that in such circumstances the driver of the vehicle came within the scope of our own criminal law,


imposing an obligation with regard to compulsory insurance and as to the manner and care requisite in the driving of that vehicle. I should like the Minister to direct his mind specifically to the question whether it is a fact that no change is made in the situation by the references, now incorporated into the Order, to the Road Traffic Act, 1956.
As he has said, there are some apparently purely formal changes with reference to the existing legislation affecting the Army and the Air Force. I observe, however, that a completely new Schedule is incorporated in the Order, in substitution for that which existed in the previous Order, relating to matters of considerable importance. Two major topics are dealt with in that Schedule. The first is the position of witnesses, both civilian and Service, who may be required to give evidence before Service courts of visiting forces, and the other is the question of the detention of members of the Services of visiting forces who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment and detention.
I should like to know from the Minister why it was necessary to have a completely new Schedule. I have tried to compare the new Schedule with the old, and, so far as I can ascertain, there are no fundamental changes introduced; though the question of witnesses before the service courts and the detention of persons sentenced to imprisonment are both matters of great importance, and I should be grateful if the Minister could specifically assure the House that I was right in thinking that the changes introduced by the new Schedule are purely formal and technical and make no changes whatever of any substance in either of those two matters.
Subject to satisfactory answers to the various points, which I hope the Minister will be able to give, and speaking for myself, I may say that we recognise the necessity for this Measure, and, as I say, subject to satisfactory answers to those points, I should advise my hon. Friends that that is the view they may properly take of this Order.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Minister has introduced this Order in a very mild manner and with

his characteristic charm. He has told the House that really it is a technical matter, which simply makes an automatic and understandable extension of the Visiting Forces Act to certain other countries and makes certain consequential changes, following recent legislation in other fields which has to be brought into line. If indeed this were such an Order, I should not be addressing the House even for the few minutes which I propose to take.
In fact, this is an Order, as indeed is the Visiting Forces Act itself, which, as we have seen in the last few weeks, has an application which makes it a highly charged political issue. I wish briefly to explain the reason why I am saying this, and to ask the Minister for answers to these questions.
Section 1 of the parent Act lays down that the Act shall apply to any country provided for by Order with regard to arrangements for common defence to which Her Majesty's Government are, for the time being, parties. As the Minister said when introducing the Order, the magic letters "N.A.T.O." explain everything which is to be done under the consequential Orders. At the same time, the most recent example of the use of the Visiting Forces Act—I must raise this in order to find out the new applications of it—has been in regard to French troops in Cyprus.
I should not dream of entering into the controversy we have been going over in the House in the last month or so, but it does not require a moment of thought to realise that the presence of French troops in Cyprus, and the application of the Visiting Forces Act to them. has nothing to do with N.A.T.O. at all. In fact, when certain hon. Members of this House have urged in the past that Cyprus should be the main concern of N.A.T.O., Ministers have replied that they regarded it as a domestic British matter and not a matter which could, or should, be raised at N.A.T.O. Therefore, that is the first reason why I think it strange that the Visiting Forces Act should apply to French troops in Cyprus.
The second thing is that the purpose of the visiting French troops in Cyprus was again nothing whatever to do with N.A.T.O. Indeed, we had the speech


of the French Prime Minister a few days ago in which he said deliberately that the decision was taken not to consult with other N.A.T.O. countries, particularly the United States, for fear that if they knew they would prevent the operation from taking place. Therefore, on those two grounds; first, the fact that Cyprus itself is not a N.A.T.O. concern, and secondly, that the Anglo-French Expeditionary Force build-up in Cyprus was done without consultation with other N.A.T.O. countries—I make nothing of that, 1 use it as an example, and I am not trying to argue whether either of those things should have been done—but the circumstance being as it was, I regard it as highly improper, in fact out of order, for this Act to be applied to the French troops in Cyprus. I am particularly glad that the Minister was so straightforward when introducing this Order and murmuring "N.A.T.O." all the time as if N.A.T.O. were the only consideration, as the Act says it is, which justifies application of these Visiting Forces Orders.
A second question arises here—the application of these Orders to the Colonies. Another Section of the parent Act, of which I simply give the reference —Part III, Section 15—lays down that any territory may be specified in a supplementary Order and automatically the provisions of the parent Orders apply to that territory. In September we had the news that the Privy Council had met urgently at Balmoral, or wherever Her Majesty was at the time, to give consideration to and enact an Order which brought Cyprus into play as a designated territory in which N.A.T.O. troops might be stationed.
The reason I raise this is that the presence of French troops in Cyprus makes all sorts of situations possible. Within a few days of them arriving in Cyprus we read in the newspapers that they had come into conflict with Eoka forces. Supposing that as a result of that fighting between Eoka and French forces the French subpoenaed Cypriot citizens, brought them to courts-martial and convicted them? What would happen to Cypriot witnesses who refused to give evidence, or gave evidence?
What is the position under these Orders? This is particularly relevant as

paragraph 3 of the Order before us tonight lays down that Luxembourg, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Portugal and Italy are brought within the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act. If Her Majesty's Government were to decide to send Turkish troops to Cyprus for any purpose at all, there would be a very important political development. I am not at all sure that tonight we should not have from the Minister answering this debate some clear statement about the extent to which the Act would be applicable in those cases.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) very rightly raised the question of reciprocity. He raised it in a legal sense; are we sure that we are getting as good as we are giving? That is right, but the question arises, if reciprocity is to apply. whether British troops might be invited to Algeria. We indicate by this Order that we are making provision for the treatment and behaviour, powers and authority of those troops if they were sent to Algeria because the French are members of N.A.T.O. It is arguable whether it would be in order for the French to invite a force to Algeria. The Portuguese—in difficulties in Goa—might say, to Britain, "You are being turned out of your base in Ceylon; would you like a base in Goa?" This Order provides under the reciprocity provision that British troops in Goa would then enjoy certain rights and privileges while they were there. It is obvious that if there were British troops in Algeria or Goa, or Turkish troops in Cyprus, or French troops there as they are there now, matters of great moment might arise.
I wish to ask two questions. I realise that this is a big thing to ask, as I have not had an opportunity of giving the Minister notice of it. First, will he give an absolute assurance that the provisions of this Order will be applied only for the movement of troops within the strict meaning of N.A.T.O.? That is to say, in future no foreign troops will benefit from this Order unless N.A.T.O. has been consulted and has consented to the operation? I am bound to ask this in view of the very strict wording of the parent Act and in view of the very phrases which the Minister used in introducing the Order.
Secondly, I want an absolute assurance that if these troops who are authorised by this Order to be sent to British Colonies are in fact sent to those Colonies, there will not be a general authorisation for them to take action and to use their powers in any local emergency which might exist. This is a very serious question in Cyprus today. The terrorism there seems to be worse rather than better, and while French troops remain there, there is grave danger that this situation might arise again.
I hope the Minister has been able, by means of the traditional manner of getting information in the middle of a debate, to obtain information to give some answers to those questions.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I shall differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in one of the points which he made. Neither the parent Act nor this Order gives—nor could it give—any immunities to British troops either in Algeria or in Goa, or anywhere else. We have no power to grant immunity to our troops or to anybody else outside our jurisdiction.
That is the point to which I want to apply my mind. When the Act was passed, we pressed the then Attorney-General, now Lord Kilmuir, to give us assurances that the immunities which we were granting to Americans here would be granted to us in America by the American Government. He gave us specific assurances that the same immunities would be granted to us as we were granting. Has that been done? I will answer that question for the Joint Under-Secretary of State: not one single immunity has been granted by the United States, nor could it be granted by the United States, because there is no power under the United States constitution for the American Government to do so. The United States constitution provides no power to the American Government to place people within the United States outside and above the law of the United States.
Will the hon. Member please acknowledge that now? Exactly the opposite was promised to the House when the parent Act was passed. Precisely what

was said would happen has happened—nothing. Will the hon. Member please confirm that now? Will he have something to say about why the House was induced to pass the original Act under what were false pretences?
Whether we have reciprocity or not as a matter of convenience—and it is right that we should have it—I think we ought not to be deceived as we were deceived on that occasion.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: A number of questions have been asked and I will do my best to produce the right answers to at least most of them.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) began with a question to which all three hon. Members opposite who have spoken have referred—reciprocity. He asked, first, whether there had been any developments since this was discussed in 1954, with particular reference to the United States. The answer in relation to the United States is that the position statutorily is the same from their point of view. There is no change. I would add that the remarks which were then made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who was then Attorney-General, carry as much force now as they did then.

Mr. Paget: In other words, he is still wrong.

Mr. Deedes: No cases have arisen of the type about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked.

Mr. Paget: Let us get a straight answer about America. Nothing has happened in America, has it?

Mr. Deedes: I have just said that there has been no statutory change in the United States.

Mr. Paget: And there cannot be.

Mr. Deedes: Nor has there been any statutory change in India and Pakistan. There has been no legislation. The only country which has passed legislation since this matter was discussed in 1954 is Canada.
I was also asked about reciprocity in relation to the six additional members. I think I should give this information. The Status of Forces Agreement has now


been ratified by all the member States of the Atlantic alliance, except Iceland and Germany. Iceland will probably not ratify the Agreement because the foreign troops on her soil are covered by a separate agreement and she has no forces serving abroad. Negotiations with the Federal Republic are continuing.
None of the six States listed have at the moment forces in the United Kingdom, but the position statutorily from their point of view is as follows. Luxembourg will not require special legislation to enable the Status of Forces Agreement to be put into effect. The act of ratification itself makes the Agreement part of Luxembourg law. In the case of the countries where additional legislation is necessary—that is, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Turkey—the necessary legislation has been enacted in those four countries. The position in Portugal is not at the moment very clear, but I understand that it will be clarified satisfactorily pretty soon. That accounts for the countries which arise for discussion today, as opposed to those discussed in 1954.

Mr. James Callaghan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I remind him that there are 18 countries shown here to which this Order applies. Can he say shortly in how many of these 18 countries the same arrangements are applied by them to us?

Mr. Deedes: I am sorry, I cannot give the answer statutorily in relation to those countries. I can give the information in relation to their entry into N.A.T.O. I thought that the six new entries with which this Order deals were the countries which particularly concerned the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).
On the question of the Road Traffic Act, on which my right hon. and learned Friend gave some assurances in 1954 regarding compensation and so on, I can assure the House that there is no change in the provisions which apply here. Most of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, will now apply to visiting forces, so that the position will be strengthened rather than otherwise by the Order.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does the hon. Gentleman offer any explanation of the unworthy and unsatisfactory failure of these other countries to

introduce reciprocal provisions in their own legislation?

Mr. Deedes: With respect to the six member countries that we are discussing tonight, I thought I had been able to give not unsatisfactory accounts of what had been done. With regard to the others, statutorily the reciprocity is not complete.

Mr. Paget: Not complete? It does not exist at all.

Mr. Callaghan: No doubt, from time to time we shall have additions to this list, and we shall go on adding to them, may be quite rightly. What diplomatic initiative have the Government taken during the last two years to see that these things become reciprocal?

Mr. Deedes: What matters, and what I think can be said, is that there is no reason to suppose that any of these countries would be unable or unwilling to fulfil the obligations which are expected of them under this Agreement.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, as far as the United States is concerned, unless the Americans are prepared to carry a number of constitutional Amendments, they are not only unwilling, they are unable to provide reciprocity on anything like these lines.

Mr. Irvine: Is this country to be the only country which allows other people to tell it what to do?

Mr. Deedes: I do not at all accept the last intervention by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine).
I apologise for the rather diffuse replies which I am giving to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am doing my best. We now come to the Fifth Schedule, to which he referred. The changes in the Schedule, I can assure him, are purely formal and they are not changes of substance; they do not alter the present position in any way.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) sought, I think, to get me into even deeper waters by asking what he was pleased to call two questions, which, I say quite frankly, I do not think arise directly from the Order we are discussing. I am not seeking to burke the questions.
With regard to the position of the Colonies, the hon. Member may like to consult Statutory Instrument No. 637 of 1954, which applies to Cyprus, Hong Kong and Malta. Perhaps I may explain it in this way. Section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act. 1952, provides that references in the Act to a country to which a provision of the Act applies are references to Commonwealth countries and to any country designated for the purposes of that provision by Order in Council. The Visiting Forces (Designation) Order, 1954, designates certain countries, including the United States of America.
The purpose of the Order No. 637 of 1954, is to extend to certain Colonial Territories the provisions of the Visiting Forces (Designation) Order, 1954, in so far as those provisions relate to the United States of America. That is the Order dated 1954 to which. as it were, there is nothing statutorily to add.

Mr. Benn: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it was just because that Order mentioned only the United States that the Government had to rush a special Order through in September to include France. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has the Order that included France; perhaps he is just coming to it. But the point surely arises that, whereas the 1954 Order was a general Order and nobody took any objection to it, in September it was a specific Order to allow French troops to move to Cyprus, outside N.A.T.O. and without N.A.T.O. having been consulted.

Mr. Deedes: I quite appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me to. But may I say that the Order which is under discussion relates to forces entering this country, none of which can enter this country without the permission of Her Majesty's Government? That is the position arising out of the Order under discussion. I am not prepared to go off into the deeper waters into which the hon. Gentleman wishes to lead me, because the question does not arise under the Order we are discussing.

Mr. Benn: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Surely, he will confirm that this view is correct. The Application of Law Order, 1954, was extended, for designated coun-

tries, by the other Order to which he has just referred, to British Colonies. Will he not confirm that the provisions of this Order will, as soon as they are passed, immediately come into operation for any troops mentioned in article 3 who happen to be in British Colonies at this particular moment?

Mr. Deedes: Yes, that is a correct assumption; I accept that.
The second point which the hon. Member raised related to its application to the Colonies, and I think I have dealt with that.
Finally, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised this general question of reciprocity. He will recall the broad policy which was outlined by the then Attorney-General in 1954, which was that there was no reason —I have said this once already—to suppose that the countries concerned would be unable or unwilling to fulfil their obligations, and that it was the essence of the contract that there should be a degree of trust in this matter. To that there is at the moment nothing further to add. This Order in no way alters the situation on that aspect from what it was in 1954.

Mr. Callaghan: But there is something to add, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. He has to add this. What initiative has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that these other nations adopt the same relationship with us as we have with them?

Mr. Deedes: The question which all hon. Members have asked is what statutory effect—

Mr. Callaghan: I am asking another question, which is, what have Her Majesty's Government done about it?

Mr. Deedes: We cannot compel other countries to give statutory effect to these obligations.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman cannot compel anybody in another country to do this, but that is not my question. I think that mine is quite a simple question. Has anything been done by the Government to try to get this reciprocity with other countries?

Mr. Deedes: What I have to satisfy the House about is that these obligations


would be fulfilled if the occasion arose. That being so, it does not fall to us to press for legislative action by other countries.

Mr. Paget: The position is surely this. Two years ago, when this matter was raised, the then Attorney-General assured us categorically that certain action would be taken by the Americans. That action has admittedly not been taken. We at that time told the then Attorney-General that he was talking nonsense, that the Americans would not and could not take the action. What we should like to be told now is that we were quite right and that the righ hon. and learned Gentleman was quite wrong. That is what has happened in two years.

Mr. Deedes: The then Attorney-General did not in any way suggest that the United States would give statutory effect to the obligation. I think I am right, if my memory serves me correctly.

Mr. John Strachey: The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to refresh his memory. Perhaps I can do it for him. The then Attorney-General said:
I was asked whether I had given an opinion on this matter, but, as I am not qualified in United States law, that would be a very foolish thing for me to do, and it is not a thing which I should do. I did take the precaution of getting the best possible opinion, from the legal advisers to the American Government, who tell us that there is no doubt that what Mr. Bedell Smith said was said with the greatest possible care and after the greatest possible consideration, and is right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1956; Vol. 526, c. 1300.]
What Mr. Bedell Smith told us was that the United States Government were in a position to give us reciprocity in this matter. Now we find it is perfectly clear—

Mr. Nigel Fisher: It is purely academic.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) says that it is purely academic. That is an entirely new view. Up to now we have been told that it was of the highest importance that the United States should give us reciprocity. Now we are told that it is academic. It is very interesting. If the Government put this view to us we shall naturally take an entirely different attitude to the Order, because we were told that this was being passed on the

basis of reciprocity. The hon. Member for Surbiton, speaking apparently for his Minister—he is in very close contact with official sources on this matter—tells us that it does not matter at all. Perhaps the Minister disagrees with him. That is a better defence than the other one, but we should like to know where we are on this point.

Mr. Deedes: The discussion is being taken a good way beyond the Order, although I am not taking exception to that. We are going back to the foundations that were discussed fully in 1954. The purpose of the Order is clearly defined. No assurance was given in 1954 that statutory effect was likely to be given by the United States to these obligations. We said that we had no reason to suppose that they would not fulfil their obligations. Nothing has happened since that date to alter the assurance that was then given or the fact that I can give the assurance again tonight.

Mr. Strachey: The Minister should give a little more than that to the House, which has felt more and more disquiet about the position disclosed. We must press this matter of reciprocity. Let me read a few more words of what the then Attorney-General told us:
All I can say is that surely if we are to work with our ally, the United States, and we are told that the American Government have been assured by their legal advisers that all that is necessary has been done, it is a difficult way to approach our loyalties under N.A.T.O. if we say that some legal gentleman has given an opinion casting doubt upon that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1300.]
The opinions of the legal gentlemen were the opinions of a very great United States constitutional lawyer and of United States senators, and showed that the thing could be done.
We ask the Minister whether the thing has been done in the United States, and whether our troops have, when they are in the United States—[Interruption.] Who is to say that we shall never have troops in the United States under N.A.T.O.? We have a few troops there, and from time to time our naval forces go to the United States. To say that it is academic is fantastic.
Here is an Order under an Act which, on this side of the House, we have always been willing to accept, because it is something which this country can accept with


good feeling and without the slightest humiliation, as long as it is reciprocal. Now we find that it is not reciprocal at all. We are told by a Government supporter that that is quite academic.
Very hard words have been used from the Government benches recently on this alliance; a good deal too harsh for us. It is a great pity, because on an issue of this sort it is important for good feeling and the morale of the alliance that this should be reciprocal. The Government have done absolutely nothing about it. [Laughter.] I can imagine why there is laughter from the Government side of the House. Government supporters have made it clear recently that they care nothing about this, and have expressed most extreme views. This is not a big issue but it is of some importance, and we have been told nothing about it. It seems to mean absolutely nothing to the Minister.

Mr. Deedes: It is not true that this means absolutely nothing to the Minister. The right hon. and learned Member asked what had happened since 1954 and I gave the answer that statutorily there had been no change at all. That is rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The point about what would happen were British troops to land and remain in the United States as American troops are here has not arisen. [Interruption.] We have not got troops stationed in America.

Mr. Paget: There are British troops stationed there.

Mr. Strachey: Surely that is an error. British naval forces call from time to time at American ports. It is highly likely that there are some there at the moment. It is surely not the case that it does not arise.

Mr. Paget: There is a staff of at least a hundred in Washington at the moment.

Mr. Deedes: What I am trying to say is that, despite the absence of statutory reciprocity, there is no reason to doubt that the United States would fulfil its obligations to our troops as we fulfil our obligations to American troops. That is what was said in 1954, and that is the assurance that I am repeating tonight. I really do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that no answer at

all has been received to the point which has been raised.

Mr. Paget: The American common law is based on our common law. Any American can prosecute any of our troops there in the same way as anybody in this country, but for the Order and the Statute, could bring a prosecution against members of the American forces here. My view all along has been that the Act was necessary, right and convenient, but that there could not be reciprocity. This is what we are complaining about. We were categorically assured—

Mr. Paul Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to follow the latter part of the debate. I apologise for having come into the Chamber just for the last part. I have rather lost track in my mind of who has the Floor of the House and how many speeches are being made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it possible to have a Ruling about the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have certainly observed that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has already addressed the House on the topic, and it seemed to me that he was trying to make a second speech. I think that when I came in the Floor of the House was occupied by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I do not know whether or not he has finished his speech.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I indicated to the Joint Under-Secretary, who then had the Floor, that I wished to intervene. With the courtesy with which he always treats the House, he gave way to me. I was taking the opportunity to explain the point with which I wanted him to deal.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I would point out that an intervention is one thing and a second speech is another.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I intervene because I think this is a moment of some significance at which one can consider the background of the Order.
We have here the conception of Western society getting together on a basis of collaboration, agreement and mutual


support to establish resistance against compulsive forces emanating from the East. With that objective in mind, it is decided by Western society that certain mutual arrangements shall be made to protect the rights of forces in the countries of the Western alliance.
Up to that point, and bearing in mind the nature of the objective, I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary would find any kind of objection from this side of the House. It is, indeed, from many points of view an admirable thing that, in this context of political relationships, the countries of the West should proceed to devise measures and provisions which will enable the combatants of the Western nations to receive in the various countries of the Western alliance similar advantages, privileges and status.
Up to that point all is well and in harmony with our objective. Surely it is a most distressing thing that there should be a complete breakdown in the implementation of that objective. It is a most unsatisfactory circumstance that we should proceed to pass into law the most elaborate, detailed and specific legislation determining that visiting forces from other countries in the Western alliance should be bound by this and that provision in our law when, at the same time, in the other countries of the Western alliance nothing has been done of any similar or parallel kind. This goes to the very heart of the alliance.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member will recall that in answer to a question put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman I accounted for four out of the six countries which form the main substance of the Order, and gave accounts of what they had done with their legislation. I am sure that he would not wish to be inaccurate in this matter.

Mr. Irvine: I have no desire to be inaccurate about it, but one of the facts that we cannot disregard is that the United States is central in all this, and the United States has not taken any action subsequent upon this agreement. I do not think that Canada has taken action.

Mr. Deedes: Canada has. I said in answer to a question that legislation had been passed in Canada.

Mr. Irvine: The United States has not taken any action, and cannot. We proceeded to pass Statutory Instruments, elaborate and detailed in character, against a background in which, as I understand it, the Government were assuring us that there would be reciprocity from other countries in the Western alliance. Not only are they incapable of introducing any measures of that sort but they show no sign of overcoming the obstacles which exist to prevent their doing so.
All I say is that this fact vitiates the whole relationship. It is entirely contrary to what we understood would be the position when we agreed to the provisions of the 1952 Act. I remember the occasion perfectly well. I thought that the position as it was going to develop was to be one in which the United States would bring forward provisions governing visiting forces in the United States from this country in precisely parallel and reciprocal terms to those we had for her. It seemed to me a matter of very little moment if in practice it was unlikely that we would seek the advantages over there that were being sought by United States forces over here. That was a relatively insignificant matter; the important matter was that there should be not merely an agreement in the abstract that these reciprocal provisions should apply, but also that the necessary legislative measures should be taken in the two countries to make them practicable.
I do not want the hon. Member to think that this is merely one of those passing occasions in which matters of minor moment and small significance are being raised; it is regarded by some hon. Members on this side of the House as a very unsatisfactory matter that there has been no reciprocity here. Nothing would surprise us about the Government's policy in terms of the communication of what is thought of the United States by people in this country. There have been a hundred and one instances to make it abundantly clear that the United States has not been kept sufficiently informed about the opinion held by people over here. This Order is another example of that—not to be gainsaid and not to be dealt with too lightly.
Here we are, going into all the detail of the matter and all the particularising of it, and there is no kind of reciprocal


action on the other side. The relationship between the United States and ourselves is such that if it was clearly and reasonably conveyed that this feeling existed on this side, action would at once be taken. I say that this is evidence of a failure in the channels of communication.
What we ask is something essentially reasonable and formal in character. [Interruption.] There is a good deal of formality, and it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to disregard matters of form. I do ask the Under-Secretary and his colleagues to draw the attention of the United States, through the channels which are available, to the special circumstances about which my hon. Friends have spoken. Reluctantly, we are put into the position of having this detailed and particularised legislation to ensure that forces visiting this country from the United States are treated on a different footing from that of British Service men. The Under-Secretary is asking us to do this in the knowledge that there is no kind of equivalent courtesy emanating from the other side.

Mr. Deedes: Of course, the hon. Member's remarks will be noted. A little earlier I was asked a number of questions by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on the Order which was then under discussion and which, I think he will agree, I did my best to answer. Since then there has been a much more general debate such as there was in 1954 and to which I have not seen fit to add by way of answer to the general observations made then. What the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has said will, as I have told him, be noted; but I am not prepared to take a general argument such as he has raised, and which is not applicable to the Order under consideration. as a matter for discussion tonight.
I hope that I have been able to give all hon. Members, as well as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport, specific answers to their specific questions, and I trust that the House may now pass the Order.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sorry, but that is not satisfactory. The Under-Secretary has done his best, and we all acknowledge that he has answered our questions as

patiently as he always does; but this is the sort of Order which is put down for after ten o'clock in the hope that it will slide through, with the Whips hoping that everybody will have gone home. Had it not been for the vigilance of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is what would have happened tonight.
The Under-Secretary, we know, is too honest at heart to say that the assurance given in earlier debates about the attitude and the position of the United States has been fulfilled; and according to my right hon. and hon. Friends, it cannot be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman does not answer, but I understand that he does not dissent from that, and I must tell him that, although there are a number of British Service men at this moment in the United States, the principle of reciprocity does not apply to them as it applies to the Service men of the United States who happen to be in these islands. When he asks the House to approve this Order to extend the provisions of the Act to another group of countries, we must ask what he has done to ensure that the rights of our own men are safeguarded in those countries. That, surely, is the only sound basis for the validity of this Order; and that was why we were so pertinacious in trying to find out what the Government had done about the extending of equal rights to our troops.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy if I say to him that I do not think he knows. Perhaps it is right that he should not know, and we should have a member of the Foreign Office here—one of the many Ministers whom the Government have at the Foreign Office—who could tell us what diplomatic initiative has been taken by the Government.

Mr. Strachey: None.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend says that none has been taken at all. I wonder whether that is so. I suspect that it is. Having got the Order through, and having satisfied the House of Commons that we are going to get some reciprocity. the Government forget all about it, and nothing else happens until they want something for another country. That is not good enough. It is open to the Government to approach the Governments of other countries through the


diplomatic channels and to ask what steps, if any, they propose to take in this matter.
I put it to the Joint Under-Secretary that until he can give us this information, he should withdraw this Order. I think the House is entitled to ask him, and I think he is almost bound to give us an answer, that the Government will specifically raise with these other Governments concerned the measure of reciprocity which they are willing to give to us. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, and many other hon. Members, are not over-enamoured of the idea of soldiers coming here from Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Portugal, Italy and Luxembourg, and having the right to drive along our roads without the provisions of the Road Traffic Act applying to them. Goodness knows, we see some had examples of driving on the roads at present.
The hon. Gentleman surely has a duty to the House to be able to tell us that not only are the Government going to satisfy the requirements of the Act reasonably, but that in fact our people are not to be put to any disadvantage when they are serving in other countries. I request the hon. Gentleman to approach his colleagues concerned with this matter to make sure that we take diplomatic initiative in the matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot say more, but it is not sufficient for him to come to this House and say that these countries have the power to do so. Apparently, in the case of the United States even that is not clear, but in the case of other countries I understand that it is true that they have the power to do so, and that is all the more reason why they should get on with it.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that before the Government come to this House with a fresh series of Orders for a fresh series of countries, they will actively take up this matter with the other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and see whether we can have equal treatment as equal partners. Were the hon. Gentleman to give such an assurance, we should feel more satisfied that the Government were not trying to get some benefits for the visiting forces of other countries who come here without trying to ensure that our men overseas get the

same sort of treatment. Can the hon. Gentleman give some assurance of that sort?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the width and breadth of the decisions which can be taken by a Joint Under-Secretary at this hour of the night. Of course I undertake that the purport of what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have said will be passed on through the proper channels, and that their observations will be noted. Beyond that he knows quite well—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I am only interjecting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be more convenient for the House if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had made his speech before the Joint Under-Secretary replied the last time. We cannot have the hon. Gentleman making several speeches in reply to each hon. Member who intervenes. Has the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East concluded his address to the House?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. But, if I may say so, the point is that I should not have had to speak at all if the Joint Under-Secretary had come armed with the facts. Because he has not, we have had to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can only try my best to preserve the rules of order in the House. This debate has become a series of speeches by an hon. Member on my left and then a reply by the Joint Under-Secretary, and another speech. That is not the way it should go.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, could you please tell me, Mr. Speaker, in what way the rules of order have been transgressed by an hon. Member speaking after the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: That was not the point of order at all. What I objected to was the Joint Under-Secretary making several speeches—

Mr. Callaghan: By leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker: —at the request of hon. Members, one after the other. We cannot have it that way.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, the hon. Gentleman was on his


feet and I was trying to intervene. Have I your permission to intervene?

Mr. Speaker: Has the Joint Under-Secretary concluded his observations on the matter?

Mr. Deedes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I say that I apologise to you if I have in any way transgressed any rule of order tonight. It will be within your knowledge that a number of questions were addressed to me, not all at the same time, and I have done my best to answer them.

Mr. Speaker: That was the case. I do not think it was altogether the fault of the hon. Gentleman, but every time he made a speech there was another speech asking another specific question. That is not the way it should be done.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has said that he will pass on the observations which have been made. He can say more than that. Does he not think that tonight we have made a sufficiently good case for him to promise that he will press those observations? If he is sufficiently impressed by what has been said he has a duty to press our point of view—which he must share when he thinks about it—that we need reciprocity on the matter. Will he give a specific promise that he will press that matter?

Question put:—
That the Draft Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. GODBER and Mr. HUGHES-YOUNG were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. God ber.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I apologise to the House for detaining hon. Members for yet another half-hour. We can all agree that the matter which has just been discussed was important, and I do not regret the debate which we had. One of the great features of our Parliamentary democracy is that the ordinary Member is given an opportunity to raise what he or she may feel to be a matter of grave injustice to a constituent. Provided it can be shown that the Minister has a Ministerial responsibility in the matter, it becomes in order and you, Mr. Speaker, allow the Adjournment debate to take place.
The case which I want to raise tonight concerns a constituent of mine, but there is also a great principle involved. The story concerns a constituent whose name is John Williams. In May of this year he was accused of a crime of robbery with violence. He was accused of having committed this offence in the Sidcup area, was placed on an identity parade and was picked out on that identity parade by one of the victims of that attack. Later, he was charged with the crime. He was then taken to court and charged in the proper way. I should say at once that I am bringing no charges of negligence against the police in this matter. The fact is that, following an identification parade, he was properly charged at court and was sentenced by that court to three years' imprisonment.
This man appealed against that decision. During the period before the appeal the police found that there was another man who was very similar in appearance to my constituent. I admit this at once: they made it possible for the main witness in the case against my constituent to examine the photograph of the second man, with the consequence that the main witness in the case, upon whom the police hinged all their evidence, changed his mind and decided that my constituent was not the person who had committed the crime. I know the Joint Under-Secretary of State will agree


that so far everything I have said about the case is perfectly accurate. At the Appeal Court, where the appeal was heard before Lord Chief Justice Goddard, my constituent was discharged. He was innocent of this crime.
I wrote to the Home Secretary as a consequence of that, asking whether he would consider the payment of compensation. I have received a reply from the Home Secretary. In the earlier part of it he deals with the details of the case which I have already outlined and towards the end he writes:
Where a conviction is quashed through the operation of the ordinary appeal machinery it has never been the practice to pay compensation save where there are wholly exceptional circumstances such as evidence of negligence on the part of the police. I have been able to find no such evidence in the case of Williams and much as I regret that he should have suffered imprisonment as a result of an honest mistake in identity, I am afraid that cannot make any payment to him out of public funds.
This is the story of a man charged with an offence which he did not commit. He was picked out quite wrongly on an identification parade and sent to prison.
Let me give details of the length of time he was in prison. The offence was committed on 17th May and he was charged later in that month. As soon as he was charged with this offence he lost his job. He did no work from the time he was charged to the time he was released from gaol. That was a period of six months. He was unable to earn a single penny throughout the six months, and, as his wages before the offence were approximately £12 a week, he has lost, as a consequence of a wrong charge—a charge admitted by the police to have been incorrect—over £300 in wages alone.
Apart from the anxiety of having to defend himself against a charge for an offence which he did not commit, there is the problem created in his own home. His wife has suffered a great deal, which is understandable, and I know it to be true, because she was in receipt only of National Assistance benefit while her husband was under this sentence, and she had to sell some of her furniture. Great hardship and distress have been caused as a result of an innocent man being accused of this crime.
As I said, I wrote to the Home Secretary asking for compensation for this man. He served 11 weeks in prison for a crime that he did not commit. No one at the Home Office said, "We are sorry about it." Apparently it was just a chance that this happened. Not only did he get no apology, but he got no compensation. British justice is famous throughout the world, and I am not suggesting in any way that the trial was other than properly conducted. But I should have thought that the Home Office would have been generous in matters of this sort.
I know what the Under-Secretary will say. He will say that if he were to pay money in this case—and he has the power so to do—this would set a precedent and would mean that all those wrongfully charged and imprisoned would be likely to make a claim. I suggest that that is not a bad precedent to set. If I were charged with an offence that I did not commit, and had to go to prison for some time, I think I should have every right to ask the Home Secretary for money in view of the pain and suffering caused and loss of wages sustained.
If the Under-Secretary is to argue that case here—and I have a strong feeling that he is—frankly. I do not think the majority of the British public would accept that as a valid argument. If I understand the communication sent to me by the Home Secretary, it means that that argument will be the burden of the Under-Secretary's reply.
It so happens that this man is still out of work. Obviously, his character has been badly smeared by this case and it has not been easy to find other employment. No doubt, that problem will soon be solved, but, nevertheless, hardship has been caused to this man. I was concerned some time ago with another case involving a constituent of mine, and on that occasion we were able to get the previous Home Secretary to pay the sum of £100. I was hoping that in this case we should at least have received a similar sum. I am not expecting the Under-Secretary to work out in detail how much the man has lost, but I do feel that some compensation should be paid in a case of this kind.
Without wishing to detain the House any further, I wish to give notice to the


Under-Secretary that I shall be taking up with him and his Department the whole question of identity parades. I am shocked that large numbers of people have been placed on these parades and have been picked out as guilty persons. Of course, in many cases they never go to court because they are able to prove an alibi, but there can be no doubt that this system—although I have no alternative to suggest at the moment—is a dubious one.
The occurrence which I am discussing tonight has been created because somebody who may well have committed the crime is very similar in appearance to my constituent. That could happen to any of us. I ask the Under-Secretary to say that he will reconsider this affair, in which my constituent served 11 weeks in prison, had this threat hanging over him for six months, and was then sentenced to three years' imprisonment for an offence that he did not commit. I ask him to say that this is an ordeal which is worth the payment of compensation and that, in view of the circumstances, he will consider the matter again.

11.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has spoken very persuasively, as he usually does. He has given the facts of the case quite fairly, and the only small point of correction I should like to make is one of fact, as to the time spent by Williams actually in prison.
The relevant dates are these. He was arrested on 30th May, and in custody until 7th July, when he was committed for trial. That is a period of five-and-a-half weeks. He was on bail until his trial on 12th July, after which he was in custody as a convicted prisoner until 29th August, a period of seven weeks. He was then again released on bail pending the determination of his appeal. It is a very small point, but I just wanted to make that correction.
I should like to begin by saying something about the policy of the Government in connection with ex gratia payments. I recognise that the hon. Member for Bermondsey does not necessarily regard this as conclusive, but I think it is essential to understand it to get a clear view of this particular case.
As the hon. Member knows, the law imposes no obligation on the Executive to pay compensation to persons who have been acquitted either on trial or on appeal, or even to those who have been granted free pardons. If such a person feels he has grounds for compensation, the legal remedy is to proceed in the civil courts.
Payments are sometimes made by the Executive, but the making of ex gratia payments does not imply that the Government accept liability in these cases. The law does not provide for payment by the Executive of the costs of the defence, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey knows, when the court has made no order, nor does it provide for payment by the Executive of compensation for losses incurred by the accused as a result of prosecution or conviction.
It would not be practicable or reasonable—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish it—to expect payments from public funds in every such case as a matter of course. In recent years, the Court of Criminal Appeal has quashed an average of 25 convictions a year. The average number of successful appellants to quarter sessions is about 320. The circumstances in quashing convictions on appeal are very diverse—for instance, production of new evidence, interpretation of difficult points of law, or procedural defects at the trial.
I would go so far as to say that if a successful appellant were entitled to compensation as a matter of course, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman would contend, it would be fair to add that it would be hard to say why the same principle should not be applied to acquitted defendants, which would open up an immensely wide field. In prosecutions for indictable offences alone there are 8,000 cases a year in which, for one reason or another, the defendant is acquitted or discharged.
The hon. Gentleman will say, as he has argued tonight, that payment in such cases is out of the question but that, surely, there is cause for making payment in exceptional cases. Obviously, he would suggest, some cases are more deserving than others, and there should be discrimination.
We hold it to be wrong that the Executive should intrude in judicial functions and make ex gratia payments in


selected cases on the basis of views formed by the Executive as to the moral guilt or innocence of the accused. In the eyes of the law, every successful appellant is innocent, and for the Secretary of State to single out particular cases for special treatment might imply that he was applying a different standard of innocence from that applied by the court. To take a simple example, if payment is made to X and refused to Y, the public could draw the inference that although Y had "got away with it", so to speak, there is good reason to doubt his innocence.
Thus, the invariable policy of Secretaries of State—not only of my right hon. and gallant Friend, but of his predecessors—has been not to make ex gratia payments to acquitted defendants or successful appellants save in one circumstance, and that is where the mistaken prosecution or conviction has arisen through negligence on the part of the police or other public officials. Of course, in such cases, it is clearly reasonable that the State should make some recompense.

Mr. Mellish: With respect, the earlier case I mentioned was one where there was no negligence on the part of the police. What happened was that new evidence was obtained and presented to the Home Secretary, and, as a result, under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, a new trial was ordered. In that new trial, the man was acquitted. He got compensation then, the point being, as I understood, that an innocent man had been in gaol for a crime which he did not commit. With respect, it is the same argument here—a man has been in gaol at least for the period of time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and he has had this matter hanging over him for much longer.

Mr. Deedes: Perhaps I should have mentioned the case, which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, in which action was taken by the then Home Secretary under Section 19. Action was taken in that case by referring it, under Section 19 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Government do not accept legal liability, but it is the practice to make an ex gratia payment in recognition of hardship which an innocent individual has suffered through failure on the part of

public officials. Let us apply this general principle to this particular case. Was there negligence or misconduct by the police or other public officials?
From information which my right hon. and gallant Friend has, and which I have seen, there is nothing to suggest that. When the matter was investigated by the police there was a direct conflict of evidence; on the one hand, there was identification by one of the men who had been robbed, and, on the other, evidence of an alibi. In view of very positive identification by the victim of the attack—not by a passer-by—the police thought it right that the facts should go before the court. After hearing all the evidence, the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams had committed the offence.
I do not think that any blame can be attached to anyone for that unhappy mistake. The identification was made in good faith and the police acted on it in good faith. As soon as a mistake was suspected, the police gave every facility for checking, and the witness, far from taking the easy way out, candidly admitted that he might have been mistaken. That, at least, indicates a certain amount of good faith there. If there was not negligence or misconduct—

Mr. Mellish: It is a terrifying thought that if the witness had not decided that he might have made a mistake my constituent might still have been in gaol.

Mr. Deedes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the point with which I am concerning myself—misconduct by the police or by public officials. That is the case I have to prove. If there was not negligence or misconduct, then this case does not fall within the restricted category outside of which it is the established policy of Secretaries of State not to make payments.
I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about identity parades and his proposed action in respect of them. No doubt he will have noted what my right hon. and gallant Friend had to say about these parades on 25th October, when the subject was raised in the House. I do not propose, at this late hour, to enlarge on that subject—and I am sure the hon.
Gentleman will not expect me to do so—except to say that in this case there was no suggestion that the identity parade was not properly conducted so far as the police or other public officials were concerned.
I hope that I have shown why my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot accede to the request which has been made so persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said that no apology of any sort had been made to Williams. I sometimes feel that in these cases where

compensation is refused apologies can sound hollow. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that I express my sympathy towards Williams and regret that through no fault of his own he suffered 13 weeks in custody and had this anxiety suspended over him for five months. My expression of sympathy is certainly not intended to be hollow. It is sincerely expressed and sincerely felt.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.